Rating: 
Summary: The Apogee
Review: Byzantine history is a little dry, but then again, history never made any promises to be exciting. This "apex" of the Byzantine empire is surprisingly dull when compared to the apex of other empires, especially, and perhaps ironically, the great Ottoman Empire. Nevertheless, its worthwhile if not just because it covers the reign of the unfortunately named Basil the Bulgar-Slayer (Basil II), and the Macedonian dynasty.The book opens with the revivacation of the Western empire under the Franks, the dwindling power of iconoclasm in its second outbreak, and the looming schism between the papacy and Constantinople. Then, of course, the rise to power of Basil I, the first of many great usurpers, who rose to power by killing the great Regent Bardas and the Emperor Michael III. A cultural high-point is reached under Basil's dynasty, and competent leadership manages to at least overweight bad leadership for a time. The Emperor John I, one of my favorite bloody usurpers, is also dealt with. The book closes with the chaotic period that followed Basil II's death, in which the Emperors and Empresses seemed to replace each other annually, each outdoing the last in mismanagement, and the beginning of the end, with the arrival of a new enemy, the Seljuk Turks, and the defeat at Manzikert. The book suffers a bit by lack of reliable contemporary sources, and one can feel the author's frustration. Still, there are bright moments, not the least of which is the luckless Liudprand and the eloquent but dangerously conceited Michael Psellus, both of which are quoted liberally for good reason. Lord Norwich isn't a professional scholar, but he's certainly well read on the topic, and writes with great humor and color. Worth reading.
Rating:
Summary: The second book of the trilogy
Review: I had a hard time putting this book down. For those who want more than just a cursory review of the history of this important civilization, the trilogy is a must. This second book begins with the coronation of Charlemagne and ends with Alexius Comnenus coming on the scene. Why events happened as they did is always a question in medieval history; however, the author provides several views in most cases.
Rating:
Summary: The Golden Age of Byzantium
Review: In his first book, "Byzantium: The Early Centuries" Norwich explained that Byzantium continued the Roman Empire in the East. That precept remained true for the period covered by this instalment, "Byzantium: The Apogee," but in practice, the Eastern Empire of 800-1071 was a a totally Greek-speaking, Orthodox Christian nation sandwiched between a resurgent Western Empire, an assertive Balkan community in the north and an explosive Muslim neighbor throughout the Arab pensinsula. To add to which, its own body politic was riven with conflict over "iconoclasm," the debate over the proper use of imagery in Orthodox Christian worship. Small wonder, then, that the Romans (as they still called themselves) evolved the most sophisticated and duplicitous diplomatic and espionage service in history - not for nothing was the adjective "Byzantine" coined to denote a system at once elaborate, impenetrable and deceptive. Small wonder also that the internal politics of Byzantium were among the most vicious and introspective known to to history - every page there is a new castration, putting-out-of-eyes, nose-slitting or beheading. The two big military events in this volume are the reign of Basil the Bulgar Slayer, conqueror of Bulgaria (and mutilator of prisoners), as well as the final ignomony, the Battle of Manzikert, 1071, in which the Turks decisively displaced the Eastern Empire from most of Asia Minor. Another great instalment.
Rating:
Summary: The Golden Age of Byzantium
Review: In his first book, "Byzantium: The Early Centuries" Norwich explained that Byzantium continued the Roman Empire in the East. That precept remained true for the period covered by this instalment, "Byzantium: The Apogee," but in practice, the Eastern Empire of 800-1071 was a a totally Greek-speaking, Orthodox Christian nation sandwiched between a resurgent Western Empire, an assertive Balkan community in the north and an explosive Muslim neighbor throughout the Arab pensinsula. To add to which, its own body politic was riven with conflict over "iconoclasm," the debate over the proper use of imagery in Orthodox Christian worship. Small wonder, then, that the Romans (as they still called themselves) evolved the most sophisticated and duplicitous diplomatic and espionage service in history - not for nothing was the adjective "Byzantine" coined to denote a system at once elaborate, impenetrable and deceptive. Small wonder also that the internal politics of Byzantium were among the most vicious and introspective known to to history - every page there is a new castration, putting-out-of-eyes, nose-slitting or beheading. The two big military events in this volume are the reign of Basil the Bulgar Slayer, conqueror of Bulgaria (and mutilator of prisoners), as well as the final ignomony, the Battle of Manzikert, 1071, in which the Turks decisively displaced the Eastern Empire from most of Asia Minor. Another great instalment.
Rating: 
Summary: Bad History
Review: John Julius Norwich writes the way most of us would love to but never will, bringing characters and situations to life in a rich and varied tapestry. Unfortunately his research is appalling. He has clearly read only few of the primary sources and none of the secondary work of the last thirty years. This leads not only to a myriad of small, slipshod errors (during the Iconoclast period he tells us that the Aegean fleet rebelled - it would be more accurate to tell us that the Theme [province] which supported the fleet rebelled, meaning that not only the major fleet but also a large part of the coastline and some of the hinterland of Southern Anatolia went over to the opposition) but also significant errors of judgement. This includes Iconoclasm and the economic development of the Empire but the best example comes with the crisis of the Seventh Century and the development of the Theme system which supported the armed forces and provided the administrative base for the remaining lands of the empire. After much scolarly debate over the last thirty years, the consensus is now that the majority of the changes took place in the second half of the Seventh Century as a consequence of the withdrawal of armies from Palestine and the Balkans into Anatolia. Norwich by contrast plumps for an overnight transformation by the Emperor Heraclius in about 740. The problems with this view are many and varied, not least that it was impossible for the state to have implemented it in this timescale, that Heraclius at the time was mentally incapable of enforcing it and that there is simply no evidence to support it. Noone has sensibly suggested this opinion for over twenty five years, and it was never very popular back then. Now I don't have a problem with Norwich comming up with this theory if he thinks he can intelectually support it, maby the consensus is wrong, but if he goes so far off the beaten track he has a duty to his readers to tell them so, and to offer some proof. Norwich does neither. In fact I am reasonably sure I know which book he read on the subject before producing his sweeping prose (Ortrogorsky's 'History of the Byzantine State') and I rather suspect he didn't bother with anything else. Norwich's history is therefore lazy, innacurate and a snare for the unwary. Read it for the English certainly, but if you want to know about Byzantium steer well clear.
Rating:
Summary: As Complex yet Simple as a Christmas Ornament
Review: John Norwich, in developing his three volume study of the history of byzantium, has offered to the modern student of the era a clean, thorough and absorbing read. Like those glittering bits of gold mosaic chips adorning the apses od St. Marks of Venice or the hand-colored angels frescoed onto pre-Romanesque chapels, the assemblage as much as the design and substance is appreciable. Unlike other Byzantine scholars, Norwich's oeuvre (like his walking tour like approach in his history to the city Venice) does not become lost in the filigree of politics or hagiographics. The design structure is ornamental while not being ornate, accesible and not digressive, daunting yet seemingly economic. A safe alternative to other histories, "The Apogee," as the second volume stands out like the central panel of a Rublev icon; a joy to keep as much as admire. Strongly recommend
Rating:
Summary: Absolutely great!
Review: Norwich is a great history writer. With these three books he really opened a door to me of a civilization so important to everything western but that is either unknown or dismissed. He brings forth to us "all the majesty and authority of the thousand year old Roman Empire."
Rating:
Summary: great history, excellent writer
Review: Norwich writes for the lay reader, but relies heavily on primary sources, often with intriguing quotes. Despite the potential for dry history, he instead presents a lively and fascinating account of the millennium of Byzantine history, starting with Constantine and ending with the Ottoman conquest. Beginning with a quote from W.E.H. Lecky, 1869, "Of that Byzantine empire the universal verdict of history is that it constitutes, without a single exception, the most thoroughly base and despicable form that civilisation has yet assumed.. ...The history of the Empire is a monotonous story of the intrigues of priests, eunuchs and women, of poisonings, of conspiracies, of uniform ingratitude of perpetual fratricides.", he comments, "This somewhat startling diatribe... although to modern ears it is perhaps not quite so effective as the author meant it to be -- his last sentence makes Byzantine history sound not so much monotonous as distinctly entertaining -- the fact remains that, for the past 200 years and more, what used to be known as the Later Roman Empire has had an atrocious press. "
Norwich proceeds to prove that point in 3 volumes of readable history filled with tales both heroic and despicable. The footnotes are as intriguing as the main text. After describing how "the soldiers everywhere proclaimed that they would accept on none but Constantine's sons, reigning jointly. With Crispus dead, that left the three sons born to Fausta; the Caesar in Gaul Constantine II, the Caesar in the East Constantius, and the Caesar in Italy Constans", he footnotes "The distressing lack of imagination shown by Constantine in the naming of his children has caused much confusion among past historians, to say nothing of their readers. The latter can take comfort in the knowledge that it lasts for a single generation only -- which, in a history such as this, is soon over" His style is brisk and interlocking, writing on the broader European history, he'll follow one thread for several years, then return to the main branch and continue on. The current year under discussion is always in the upper right corner of the page, making it easier to follow the twists and turns of the plot. The book is so well written that one can easily jump in anywhere and pick up the flow.
One of the major benefits of this leisurely treatment is the ability to correct historic misunderstandings and mistakes. The first and most interesting is his emphasis on the fact that the 'barbarian' invasions of the 4th and 5th centuries were almost always led by christianized tribes (Goths, Vandals, Ostrogoths, Visigoths) looking for a land to settle their people. And in many cases, these were not invasions, but uprisings and revolts of peoples who had been promised land and security by the emperor(s) and then been ignored. The case of Alaric is of particular interest -- history books typically spend a paragraph at best and describe him as an invading brute, whose invasion of Italy is stopped only by a courageous pope. In fact, Alaric and his Visigoths had been alllied with the Roman Empire for some years, and it was only after they had been continually denied their promised lands that Alaric invaded. (He was opposed by the Vandal Stilicho who led the Imperial forces.
It's always difficult for modern readers to fully understand any previous culture, and for the Byzantine case, Norwich spends extra time trying to convey a sense of the importance of religion in every day affairs. Many of the political arguments revolved around the propagation and extermination of various heresies. Despite the attempts of various councils convened by the Emperors, heresies such as the Arian, Nestorian and monophysite continued to prosper. What's particularly interesting is that the history is not a simple progression of orthodox emperors and allied clergy fighting a successful battle against heterodox opinion. Rather it's a much more complex situation in which Arian or monophysite ideas would control the state and church for long periods. Only after the fact can one look back to see the emergence of the orthodox. Splits between east and west were also common, but sometimes even comical:
In 482, the Emperor Zeno's attempt to
"heal the breach by means of a circular letter known as the Henoticon, had proved spectacularly unsuccessful. It had sought to paper over the differences .. and, like all such compromises, it had aroused the implacable hostility of both sides. Most outraged of all were Pope Simplicius in Rome and his successor Felix III, whose anger was still further increased by the appointment to the Patriarchate of Alexandria, with the bless of both Zeno and Acacius, of one Paul the Stammerer, a cleric whose utterances, when comprehensible at all, were violently monophysite in character. At a synod held in Rome in 484, Pope Felix had gone so far as to excommunicate the Patriarch of Constantinople -- a sentence which, in default of any orthodox ecclesiastic courageous enough to pronounce it, had been transcribed on to a piece of parchment and pinned to the back of Acacius's cope during a service in St. Sophia, when he was not looking, whereat the Patriarch, discovering it a few moments later, instantly excommunicated him back, thereby not only placing the see of Constantinople on the same hierarchical level as that of Rome but simultaneously confirming and open schism between the two churches that was to last for the next thirty-five years."
The Byzantium trilogy contains a good index, and excellent tables of the emperors, and family trees for the often confusing lineages. The maps are adequate, but as so often happens, fail to contain many of the important place names contained in the text. Luckily there are many excellent historical atlases available as complements. While expensive ($45 each in hard cover), Byzantium is well worth the price.
Rating:
Summary: great history, excellent writer
Review: Norwich writes for the lay reader, but relies heavily on primary sources, often with intriguing quotes. Despite the potential for dry history, he instead presents a lively and fascinating account of the millennium of Byzantine history, starting with Constantine and ending with the Ottoman conquest. Beginning with a quote from W.E.H. Lecky, 1869, "Of that Byzantine empire the universal verdict of history is that it constitutes, without a single exception, the most thoroughly base and despicable form that civilisation has yet assumed.. ...The history of the Empire is a monotonous story of the intrigues of priests, eunuchs and women, of poisonings, of conspiracies, of uniform ingratitude of perpetual fratricides.", he comments, "This somewhat startling diatribe... although to modern ears it is perhaps not quite so effective as the author meant it to be -- his last sentence makes Byzantine history sound not so much monotonous as distinctly entertaining -- the fact remains that, for the past 200 years and more, what used to be known as the Later Roman Empire has had an atrocious press. Â "
Norwich proceeds to prove that point in 3 volumes of readable history filled with tales both heroic and despicable. The footnotes are as intriguing as the main text. After describing how "the soldiers everywhere proclaimed that they would accept on none but Constantine's sons, reigning jointly. With Crispus dead, that left the three sons born to Fausta; the Caesar in Gaul Constantine II, the Caesar in the East Constantius, and the Caesar in Italy Constans", he footnotes "The distressing lack of imagination shown by Constantine in the naming of his children has caused much confusion among past historians, to say nothing of their readers. The latter can take comfort in the knowledge that it lasts for a single generation only -- which, in a history such as this, is soon over" His style is brisk and interlocking, writing on the broader European history, he'll follow one thread for several years, then return to the main branch and continue on. The current year under discussion is always in the upper right corner of the page, making it easier to follow the twists and turns of the plot. The book is so well written that one can easily jump in anywhere and pick up the flow.
One of the major benefits of this leisurely treatment is the ability to correct historic misunderstandings and mistakes. The first and most interesting is his emphasis on the fact that the 'barbarian' invasions of the 4th and 5th centuries were almost always led by christianized tribes (Goths, Vandals, Ostrogoths, Visigoths) looking for a land to settle their people. And in many cases, these were not invasions, but uprisings and revolts of peoples who had been promised land and security by the emperor(s) and then been ignored. The case of Alaric is of particular interest -- history books typically spend a paragraph at best and describe him as an invading brute, whose invasion of Italy is stopped only by a courageous pope. In fact, Alaric and his Visigoths had been alllied with the Roman Empire for some years, and it was only after they had been continually denied their promised lands that Alaric invaded. (He was opposed by the Vandal Stilicho who led the Imperial forces.
It's always difficult for modern readers to fully understand any previous culture, and for the Byzantine case, Norwich spends extra time trying to convey a sense of the importance of religion in every day affairs. Many of the political arguments revolved around the propagation and extermination of various heresies. Despite the attempts of various councils convened by the Emperors, heresies such as the Arian, Nestorian and monophysite continued to prosper. What's particularly interesting is that the history is not a simple progression of orthodox emperors and allied clergy fighting a successful battle against heterodox opinion. Rather it's a much more complex situation in which Arian or monophysite ideas would control the state and church for long periods. Only after the fact can one look back to see the emergence of the orthodox. Splits between east and west were also common, but sometimes even comical:
In 482, the Emperor Zeno's attempt to
"heal the breach by means of a circular letter known as the Henoticon, had proved spectacularly unsuccessful. It had sought to paper over the differences .. and, like all such compromises, it had aroused the implacable hostility of both sides. Most outraged of all were Pope Simplicius in Rome and his successor Felix III, whose anger was still further increased by the appointment to the Patriarchate of Alexandria, with the bless of both Zeno and Acacius, of one Paul the Stammerer, a cleric whose utterances, when comprehensible at all, were violently monophysite in character. At a synod held in Rome in 484, Pope Felix had gone so far as to excommunicate the Patriarch of Constantinople -- a sentence which, in default of any orthodox ecclesiastic courageous enough to pronounce it, had been transcribed on to a piece of parchment and pinned to the back of Acacius's cope during a service in St. Sophia, when he was not looking, whereat the Patriarch, discovering it a few moments later, instantly excommunicated him back, thereby not only placing the see of Constantinople on the same hierarchical level as that of Rome but simultaneously confirming and open schism between the two churches that was to last for the next thirty-five years."
The Byzantium trilogy contains a good index, and excellent tables of the emperors, and family trees for the often confusing lineages. The maps are adequate, but as so often happens, fail to contain many of the important place names contained in the text. Luckily there are many excellent historical atlases available as complements. While expensive ($45 each in hard cover), Byzantium is well worth the price.
Rating:
Summary: Well done Byzantine
Review: Norwich writes with passion and intelligence of a subject that has been near his heart. He lays out the stories and the facts with a style that is never boring or obtuse. After I read each volume I would take time out and read Ostrogorsky's History of Byzantine. Adding the latter's more politically oriented work to the mix made Norwich's work even more complete. If nothing else I had the chance to re-read Ostrogorsky. One does not need anything else to enjoy and learn from Norwich. With the excitement that Norwich created, I then took up Babinger's Mehmed the Conqueror. A wonderful way to continue. What makes these three authors work is their style and subtle sense of humour. Norwich brought me back to an intriging era of world history that we need to learn from in our present time. What makes it even better is that he levels the playing field. I am happy that I opted for the complete set and not the condensed version. This way I get the author's whole intent along with his wit and style. Well worth the time and money involved. This is a work that I will return again and again. A good friend!
|
