Talk:Maurice (emperor)

Should this article be renamed?

I'm guessing this article was named "Maurice I" because Maurice was already used for the Forster novel. However, it seems kind of strange to use the ordinal as there was no Maurice II. Would it be more in keeping with Wikipedia style to use Maurice (emperor) as the title, in keeping with Alexander III (emperor), for instance? --Jfruh 15:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Adam Bishop 15:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done. --Jfruh 19:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Expansion

Only a remark: Hungerhahn has translated parts of the german article de:Maurikios and has added them here.

Please correct any spelling mistakes or wrong sentence structures. Hungerhahn 19:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Historical Inadequacies

This article reflects the Constantinople-centered imperial historical tradition and thus almost completely misses the disastrous nature of Maurice's reign, although it does allude to this a little in the last paragraph. By Maurice's day, the Roman Empire was falling apart at the seams, so his failure was hardly limited to too much faith in his own judgement. The Egyptian Copts and Syrian Jacobites, sometimes referred to as "Monophysites," were completely fed up with the empire and not prepared to tolerate its domination of their lands any longer by Maurice's day. This led Maurice to using violent suppression to try to control the Monophysites, beginning with his relative Domitian of Melitene's persecution of the Jacobites in the extreme north of Syria in 598. Jacobite refugees fled to Egypt, where they were cared for by the Copts. From 599 to 601 the serious revolt of Aykelah broke out in the Egyptian Delta, leading to the burning of Alexandria and even rebel raids on Cyprus. Egyptian grain exports to Constantinople were cut off, causing a famine in the capital. This was the immediate background of the fall of Maurice. The article currently states, "In religious matters, he was very tolerant towards Monophysitism, although he was a supporter of the Council of Chalcedon." This is nearly the opposite of the truth. Actually, he was the least tolerant emperor toward the Copts and Jacobites since the earlier attempts to suppress them between 451 and 482. His failure to placate the Copts and Jacobites led directly to the collapse of the most of the Roman Empire under Phocas and Heraclius. The revolution in which he was killed was the first successful and lasting overthrow of an emperor in Constantinople since its founding and thus was the decisive end of the Constantinian dispensation in the Roman Empire.

Bibliography:

W. H. C. Frend. The Rise of the Monophysite Movement, 1972.

Jacques Jarry. Hérésies et factions dans l’empire byzantin du IVe au VIIe siècle. Le Caire, Impr. de L’Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1968.

Severus of Ashmunayn. History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria. In Patrologia Orientalis, Vols. 1 and 5. Edited and translated by B. Evetts.

71.242.230.2 04:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Jim Davis

Since you have the sources and seem to know the subject, please add the information to the article. --Jfruh (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

@ 71.242.230.2 Most peculiar opinion. If the Empire did actually fall apart, why did Heraclius manage to mend the Byzantine Empire together and defeat the Persians. Why was Phocas known to be a fanatical oppressor of the "Monophysites" if nothing was said about Maurice in this matter. If Maurice has actually been the most harsch oppressor, most literature would depict him as such. I have not read anything about it. Hungerhahn 20:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There has been an important revisionist study of the reign of Maurice, David Olster's The politics of usurpation in the seventh century : rhetoric and revolution in Byzantium (1993). But the sectarian accusations against Maurice are probably exaggerated -- Frend's book is outdated and was working with a questionable model of religious nationalism in late antique Syria and Egypt. When I have time I'll come back and try to add some coverage of Olster's arguments.Horatio325 (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Maurice's nationality

According to Paulus Diaconus in his Historia Langobardorum Maurice was the first Emperor of the race of the Greeks, originally from Cappadocia, Asia Minor (History of the Langobards, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1906, pp.113). Could I add this information to his biography (Origings and Early Life section)? UniversalPelasgian (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it's a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Legend of Maria/Miriam

The article treats the legend of Maria/Miriam, a supposed daughter of Maurice who was married off to Khusrau II, as fact although it is more probably a legend. There is no mention of her in the (admittedly brief and somewhat outdated) lemma on Maurice in the ODB. There is a good Wikipedia page on the legend of Maria, which is linked in the section on Maurice's family. So I deleted the references to her or the marriage in the intro and the section on the Persian war.Horatio325 (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The meaning or/or the descriptive word used to denote race/religion, etc. I.e. "Maurice"

In my long studies, I would suggest that the nomen/name Maurice describes either a dark skinned person or a Moor (Moorish!) , or Saracen or African, or a person of Islam, or even someone possibly evil. Perhaps some one of you has something to say about the name and its meaning? 96.19.159.196 (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

Maurice could have had darker skin than the average Greek, but his name does not necessarily mean he did. See Pescennius Niger - his cognomen means "black" but he was from Italian stock. Colour-related cognomens can refer to features other than skin, too. I'm surprised your "long studies" did not lead you to the realization that Maurice lived considerably before Islam even existed.

--Tataryn (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)