Rating: 
Summary: Really only for the diehard Byzantium Enthusiast
Review: Detailed, precise, complete, and thick. That is how I describe "A History of the Byzantine State and Society." It is really a book only for the diehard Byzantine enthusiast. If you just want an introduction, there are other, smaller books by Treadgold which give a similiar overview but introduce you slowly.
This work begins (really) with the ascention of Diocletion to the throne and ends with the destruction of the Empire of Trebizond in 1461. Everything is at least mentioned in some detail, though not always in great detail. It is, by far, more so a political history and without noticing it, gives religion far less a part in it than he really should have considering that Byzantium is probably in at least the top 5 most religious societies in history.
It is definitely more organized then William Manchesters trilogy on Byzantium but not as easy to read. The writing style is 'Fact-After-Fact' and he does an increadibly poor job of explaining the "Monophysite" controversy in the immediate aftermath of Chalcedon in 451 yet doesn't cover the controversy with Nestorius and Ephesus in 431 nearly enough. Whatever you do when you read this, do't try to memorize ever fact that comes up since you will be overwhelmed completely.
Rating:
Summary: As Good as Going to Get
Review: Eight hundred odd pages to cover a thousand plus years of history is a major undertaking. The author weaves a remarkablly interesting and almost always coherent narative moving along at an generally brisk pace. Treadgold makes the most of what is available in the sources. It is very easy to wish for a more finely rendered and detailed social or intellectual history. However, within the limits available both as to print space and primary sources, Treadgold does a remarkable job of laying out the history of this vast, varied and long lived empire. The military, political, and theological matters of importance which were the prime motive forces in the history of Byzantium are well explicated. Economics, demographics, and epidemiology all make interrelated appearances to the extent that the underlying source material is available. Treadgold handles his material with a deft touch and extracts keen insights and interesteing factoids throughout the book. This book is an excellent introduction to the history of the Byzantine Empire for one who is reasonablly well read in the general history of the period. Are other interpretations of equal validity available in specific instances regarding Byzantine history? Yes, they are. But that is to quibble over the details. This is the definitive general work on the topic for the moment and the forseeable future. We should enjoy it for what it is, and we owe the author a debt of gratitude for a lot of hard work well done.
Rating:
Summary: Old Fashioned, but It Sure Is Good!
Review: I am a history buff of 30 year's standing, not a professional historian, and narrative history focusing on military and political events, as this book does, is my favorite kind. I felt the book did include a fair amount on social, particularly religous, topics, but wove them into the narrative instead of having separate sections that did not include any narrative at all. The book is written in a matter-of-fact but lively and direct style. It also includes many maps, all well done and useful. In fact, I like this book so much, that I have replaced my original softback copy with a hardback copy. If I want to read about some period in Byzantine history, Treadgold is the book I go to first.
Rating: 
Summary: A complete and very accurate description of an entire world
Review: I found the book really thorough, accurate, complete. It's very well written and easily readable. The author succeeds in explaining how the empire survived so long, how its power, its society and its culture depended on economical and demographical factors on which rested the might of the army. Very interesting is the constant attention paid to the army, a chief factor in byzantine history. But the book is not only about economics, demography or the army, it also recognizes the importance of the political and military leaders, their aims, their abilities and their character. The chapters on the development of society are a very usefull tool for understanding byzantine history as a whole. Definitely a good book, comparable to Ostrogorski's work in its ability to recreate an entire world so different from ours. If I may make a suggestion, the author should give more often its opinion, be more direct and, why not, sometimes a little bit more 'passionate'.
Rating:
Summary: Move Aside Ostrogorsky!
Review: I have read most recent books on Byzantium, and believe this one to be the best. Unlike most recent books -- even including the very well-written 3 volume Norwich history -- this one delves into very interesting details of the state budget. While details of how the Byzantine Empire budget evolved over the centuries may not fascinate most people, I thought it showed the relative size and prosperity of the state. Also interesting (to me at least) are the ethnographical maps and military analyzes. Moreover, the book flows very nicely and keeps the reader's interest until the very end.
Rating:
Summary: Move Aside Ostrogorsky!
Review: I have read most recent books on Byzantium, and believe this one to be the best. Unlike most recent books -- even including the very well-written 3 volume Norwich history -- this one delves into very interesting details of the state budget. While details of how the Byzantine Empire budget evolved over the centuries may not fascinate most people, I thought it showed the relative size and prosperity of the state. Also interesting (to me at least) are the ethnographical maps and military analyzes. Moreover, the book flows very nicely and keeps the reader's interest until the very end.
Rating: 
Summary: Good on substance, lacking in style
Review: It is a very heavy book and hard to handle but it is the best history of the Byzantine Empire in English.One would have supposed that it would be boring and I feared starting it, but when I began I could not put it down. Question: There seems to be rivalry between Warren Treadgold and John Haldon, another Byzantinist. They despise each other. Treadgold mentions Haldon twice in the endnotes, both times with a put-down. Haldon does not include Treadgold in his bibliography. Does anyone know why?
Rating:
Summary: An Emperor Among Scholars
Review: Professor Treadgold writes a clear, precise and forceful account of a dozen centuries of eastern Mediterranean history. This is the best introduction to Byzantium of this generation, perhaps ever. The newcomer to the field (along with many others) will find that rulers, battles, even entire nations, enter and exit these pages with confusing rapidity. To assist the reader, Professor Treadgold provides a generous collection of photos of art, architecture and coins, detailed maps, lists of rulers, explanatory notes, genealogy charts and a user friendly index. Professor Treadgold's method is to determine the best answer to a confusing historical question and present it without hesitation or qualification. Occasionally a footnote explains why the second-best hypothesis is absurd. Inevitably, those familiar with the field will find themselves disagreeing on some points, but this approach constitutes the strength of the book. The field is beset by quarrels of little significance (what difference does it make who fathered Leo the Wise?). Professor Treadgold brushes these aside to allow the narrative to flow freely and the patterns and connections to emerge. Byzantium had its own historians, who do not please the modern taste. We would like to know, but are not told, how Byzantines educated their children or chose their mates. Foreign cultures, archaeology, science, even the system for administering justice tend to be passed over as unworthy of attention. The criticisms of this book stem from Professor Treadgold's decision to rely principally on the written records produced by the Byzantines. Doubtless there are fascinating books to be written on this time and place using other materials, but they will not be Byzantine history. The reader who wonders how the keepers of western civilization saw themselves or seeks the historical foundation of contemporary eastern European and Middle Eastern controversies, will find this work of the highest value.
Rating:
Summary: Good political history
Review: This book is only for those who really like Byzantine history and it's best for those who like old-fashioned, narrative, history. That may be a small target audience, but if you fit, you'll probably love it like I did. Treadgold's strength is the lives of the most important people in the empire, especially the emperors. Although there are separate chapters on economic and social trends, often important religious and social developments are woven into chronologies based on the emperors' lives. Treadgold also emphasizes the significance of events within the empire over external ones. For instance, in discussing the decline of the empire in the latter half of the eleventh century, he details at (very interesting) length the personal weaknesses of the emporers, but hardly mentions the strengths of the Turks. That's not necessarily a criticism; he may simply think that other historians over-emphasize the importance of external factors on the history of the empire. But he doesn't always alert you when he's propounding unconventional views. He sees the battle of Manzikert as being much less significant than do many other Byzantine and military historians. I have no idea who is right, but Treadgold doesn't mention the conventional understanding of the battle at all; he simply asserts that most of the Byzantine army survived and goes on.
Rating:
Summary: Good political history
Review: This book is only for those who really like Byzantine history and it's best for those who like old-fashioned, narrative, history. That may be a small target audience, but if you fit, you'll probably love it like I did. Treadgold's strength is the lives of the most important people in the empire, especially the emperors. Although there are separate chapters on economic and social trends, often important religious and social developments are woven into chronologies based on the emperors' lives. Treadgold also emphasizes the significance of events within the empire over external ones. For instance, in discussing the decline of the empire in the latter half of the eleventh century, he details at (very interesting) length the personal weaknesses of the emporers, but hardly mentions the strengths of the Turks. That's not necessarily a criticism; he may simply think that other historians over-emphasize the importance of external factors on the history of the empire. But he doesn't always alert you when he's propounding unconventional views. He sees the battle of Manzikert as being much less significant than do many other Byzantine and military historians. I have no idea who is right, but Treadgold doesn't mention the conventional understanding of the battle at all; he simply asserts that most of the Byzantine army survived and goes on.
|
