What do you think?
Rate this book
A History of Byzantium #1
Byzantium: The Early Centuries
Volume 1 of the series. Includes 32 pages of illustrations, and 11 maps and tables.
408 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1988
About the author
John Julius Norwich
135 books615 followersJohn Julius Norwich was born in London and served in the Royal Navy before receiving a degree in French and Russian at New College, Oxford. After graduation, he joined the Foreign Service and served in Belgrade, Beirut, and as a member of British delegation to the Disarmament Conference in Geneva. In 1954, he inherited the title of Viscount Norwich. In 1964, he resigned from the Foreign Service to become a writer. He was a historian, travel writer, and television personality.
His books included The Normans in the South, A History of Venice, The Italian World, Venice: A Traveller's Companion, 50 Years of Glyndebourne: An Illustrated History, A Short History of Byzantium, Absolute Monarchs: A History of the Papacy, Sicily: An Island at the Crossroads of History, and A History of France. He and H. C. Robbins Landon wrote Five Centuries of Music in Venice.
Norwich was the host of the BBC radio panel game My Word! from 1978 to 1982. He wrote and presented more than 30 television documentaries including Maestro, The Fall of Constantinople, Napoleon's Hundred Days, Cortés and Montezuma, Maximilian of Mexico, The Knights of Malta, The Treasure Houses of Britain, and The Death of the Prince Imperial in the Zulu War.
In 1993, he was appointed CVO for having curated an exhibition at the Victoria and Albert Museum to mark the 40th anniversary of the Queen's accession to the throne. In 2015, he was awarded the Biographers' Club award for his lifetime service to biography. He died on June 1, 2018 at the age of 88.
His books included The Normans in the South, A History of Venice, The Italian World, Venice: A Traveller's Companion, 50 Years of Glyndebourne: An Illustrated History, A Short History of Byzantium, Absolute Monarchs: A History of the Papacy, Sicily: An Island at the Crossroads of History, and A History of France. He and H. C. Robbins Landon wrote Five Centuries of Music in Venice.
Norwich was the host of the BBC radio panel game My Word! from 1978 to 1982. He wrote and presented more than 30 television documentaries including Maestro, The Fall of Constantinople, Napoleon's Hundred Days, Cortés and Montezuma, Maximilian of Mexico, The Knights of Malta, The Treasure Houses of Britain, and The Death of the Prince Imperial in the Zulu War.
In 1993, he was appointed CVO for having curated an exhibition at the Victoria and Albert Museum to mark the 40th anniversary of the Queen's accession to the throne. In 2015, he was awarded the Biographers' Club award for his lifetime service to biography. He died on June 1, 2018 at the age of 88.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 141 reviews
November 20, 2016
Very enjoyable and enlightening history of Byzantium. Highly recommended for anyone with an interest in this time period.
February 19, 2024
Having read all three volumes of Byzantium by Norwich, I have found that they filled in the blank spaces of my knowledge of medieval history, especially of the Levant and Greece, where I had roamed much of my mature youth in my 20's up to my 50's (and still roaming). My reading of Norwich's trilogy eventually revitalized my interest in ancient Rome and the history of the Church. Having travelled and lived in these areas before I read the trilogy, I found myself "connecting the dots" so often that I kept copious notes on tiny notebooks (my way of consuming a well written book).
The richness with which Norwich writes drives the narrative forward. I loved this intellectual light that shone down dark paths of my ignorance and capturing subjects that, being married into the Greek culture, I had to know perforce. By the time I finished reading the trilogy, I found that I was ahead on many points of accuracy on the other side of what most people who had grown up with this history that had been passed down to them through osmosis.
Now I would like to go to Runciman, whose name even sounds medieval and whose books I saw in a Beirut bookstore in the 60's and had vowed to read but never got around to it and then of course, Gibbon.
Note: Jan 2014 The whole trilogy: Early Centuries, Apogee, Decline and Fall is some of the best popular writing of history as I've ever read. It's a long read and a slow one because of the detail. You want to hold each page on your tongue like a rich chocolate bon-bon and wish that it would melt into your brain. I intend to read the whole trilogy again. The history of Byzantium links for the student of history the ancient age with the beginning of the modern.
The richness with which Norwich writes drives the narrative forward. I loved this intellectual light that shone down dark paths of my ignorance and capturing subjects that, being married into the Greek culture, I had to know perforce. By the time I finished reading the trilogy, I found that I was ahead on many points of accuracy on the other side of what most people who had grown up with this history that had been passed down to them through osmosis.
Now I would like to go to Runciman, whose name even sounds medieval and whose books I saw in a Beirut bookstore in the 60's and had vowed to read but never got around to it and then of course, Gibbon.
Note: Jan 2014 The whole trilogy: Early Centuries, Apogee, Decline and Fall is some of the best popular writing of history as I've ever read. It's a long read and a slow one because of the detail. You want to hold each page on your tongue like a rich chocolate bon-bon and wish that it would melt into your brain. I intend to read the whole trilogy again. The history of Byzantium links for the student of history the ancient age with the beginning of the modern.
September 5, 2021
This is a story of how the Roman Empire changed into the Byzantine Empire, how old ways of the Latin world changed into Greek-speaking nation warring with the East (Persia, Muslims, some others), and the West (those various wandering nations coming to conquer and settle into Italy or the Balkans, and such; plus against people wanting to get rid of being ruled by the East Empire). From Constantine the Great in May 330, to empress Irene, pondering on Charlemagne’s marriage proposal in 800. About 1123 years.
(At the start is a couple of maps and necessary royal family tree, and at the end a short list of surviving monuments from this book’s time in Istanbul, plus the list of emperors, both in East and West. One might want to keep a bookmark at either or both ends, to look at while reading.
There are some black and white photos in the middle-ish; and at the corner of each right/hand page in the main story is the year going on in the story at that point, plus helpful side-titles.)
The author tells that only after World War II did the interest in the Byzantine empire begin; before that it was only seen in bad, inferior light – lack of knowledge and materials didn’t help. But this is true: the West owes a debt to this empire for its protection and it’s rich culture influence. One can clearly see as one is reading that there are some part in this history that made in certain that the West is as it is, now.
There are many important main things happening during this story: how Christianity begins its domination over the old faiths, has its own crises (faith details, imagery one in the first iconoclasm (destruction of the imagery), heresies) and is finally divided. The fall of Rome and its way of life, replaced by new people, new ideas, new religion. The arrival of displaced, wandering people, seeking new lands or just shiny things (the Huns, the Goths, the Avars, the Lombards, the Bulgars, etc.). The first Crusade happens, the arrival of Muslim conquerors begins. The Middle Ages begins. Charlemagne arrives into the history and the division of East and West becomes final. It’s a good point to finish this book on.
Of course, when rulers rule, there are so many things that will happen. Rulers come here in so many colors: the smart, the barbaric, the weak-willed, the unwilling, the mad, the ones barely getting anything done before their rule ends, the sickly, the ugly, the ones makes good choices, the ones making unwise choices because feelings, the tyrants, the money spenders, the well-prepared, the conquerors, the exiled, the mutilated, the executed, the ones who vanish without trace, the ones who die in the capital, the ones who die somewhere else without being an exile, the ones refusing to stay in exile, the good in battle, the bad in battle, the women ruling through men, the women ruling with men, and in the case of Irene, woman ruling alone. Child emperors, poisonings, missing/forged messages, sea battles, preparing for sieges, sneaking back home, making secret deals, pulling strings, torture, murder, scandalous marriages. Changing laws, religious opinions, taxes, moving people around from one place to another, destroying and building cities. The usual royal things...
And it’s not just the rulers that get some attention here (or the influential wives). Certain popes and churchmen get their share of attention, particularly when it’s important for the history (including some saints like Maximum the Confessor, John Chrysostom). Some important men, for the emperor, also shine, like Justinian I’s great general Belisarius. And in emperor Zeno’s time, Boethius (the one who wrote “the Consolation of Philosophy”).
Some things stand out: how shocking the Nika rebellion’s bloody engine feels to the reader, the *aww* moment when the last, quite young, emperor in the West meets his conqueror (in the ‘Fall of the West’ chapter) and is pitied so much that he gets his happy ending on a farm. The facepalm at the ways general Belisarius is mistreated and some opportunities get lost. And even sighs at how the hard work of emperor Heraclius is undone so easily after firm victory.
Norwich can’t quite keep his opinions off of the book, at least in the case of Julian, and the last ruler in this book, Irene (whose life is looked closer on on Herrin’s “Women In Purple”). But otherwise, this book is well arranged, the sources carefully chosen, and the maps, family trees, and lists are helpful in following the story. The story of the Byzantine empire begins here, and is told in an interest-grabbing manner. Really looking forward into reading the next book of this (hi)story.
(At the start is a couple of maps and necessary royal family tree, and at the end a short list of surviving monuments from this book’s time in Istanbul, plus the list of emperors, both in East and West. One might want to keep a bookmark at either or both ends, to look at while reading.
There are some black and white photos in the middle-ish; and at the corner of each right/hand page in the main story is the year going on in the story at that point, plus helpful side-titles.)
The author tells that only after World War II did the interest in the Byzantine empire begin; before that it was only seen in bad, inferior light – lack of knowledge and materials didn’t help. But this is true: the West owes a debt to this empire for its protection and it’s rich culture influence. One can clearly see as one is reading that there are some part in this history that made in certain that the West is as it is, now.
There are many important main things happening during this story: how Christianity begins its domination over the old faiths, has its own crises (faith details, imagery one in the first iconoclasm (destruction of the imagery), heresies) and is finally divided. The fall of Rome and its way of life, replaced by new people, new ideas, new religion. The arrival of displaced, wandering people, seeking new lands or just shiny things (the Huns, the Goths, the Avars, the Lombards, the Bulgars, etc.). The first Crusade happens, the arrival of Muslim conquerors begins. The Middle Ages begins. Charlemagne arrives into the history and the division of East and West becomes final. It’s a good point to finish this book on.
Of course, when rulers rule, there are so many things that will happen. Rulers come here in so many colors: the smart, the barbaric, the weak-willed, the unwilling, the mad, the ones barely getting anything done before their rule ends, the sickly, the ugly, the ones makes good choices, the ones making unwise choices because feelings, the tyrants, the money spenders, the well-prepared, the conquerors, the exiled, the mutilated, the executed, the ones who vanish without trace, the ones who die in the capital, the ones who die somewhere else without being an exile, the ones refusing to stay in exile, the good in battle, the bad in battle, the women ruling through men, the women ruling with men, and in the case of Irene, woman ruling alone. Child emperors, poisonings, missing/forged messages, sea battles, preparing for sieges, sneaking back home, making secret deals, pulling strings, torture, murder, scandalous marriages. Changing laws, religious opinions, taxes, moving people around from one place to another, destroying and building cities. The usual royal things...
And it’s not just the rulers that get some attention here (or the influential wives). Certain popes and churchmen get their share of attention, particularly when it’s important for the history (including some saints like Maximum the Confessor, John Chrysostom). Some important men, for the emperor, also shine, like Justinian I’s great general Belisarius. And in emperor Zeno’s time, Boethius (the one who wrote “the Consolation of Philosophy”).
Some things stand out: how shocking the Nika rebellion’s bloody engine feels to the reader, the *aww* moment when the last, quite young, emperor in the West meets his conqueror (in the ‘Fall of the West’ chapter) and is pitied so much that he gets his happy ending on a farm. The facepalm at the ways general Belisarius is mistreated and some opportunities get lost. And even sighs at how the hard work of emperor Heraclius is undone so easily after firm victory.
Norwich can’t quite keep his opinions off of the book, at least in the case of Julian, and the last ruler in this book, Irene (whose life is looked closer on on Herrin’s “Women In Purple”). But otherwise, this book is well arranged, the sources carefully chosen, and the maps, family trees, and lists are helpful in following the story. The story of the Byzantine empire begins here, and is told in an interest-grabbing manner. Really looking forward into reading the next book of this (hi)story.
November 2, 2022
The fourth century had been a fateful one indeed for the Roman Empire. It had seen the birth of a new capital on the Bosphorus--a capital which, although not yet the sole focus of a united political state, was steadily growing in size and importance while the world of the Western Mediterranean subsided into increasing anarchy; and it had seen the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Emperor and his subjects.
Late in this volume I contemplated my decision not to read the abridged compendium of the three volumes. That matter remains unresolved. What we have is a vast narrative history without much in terms of cause or flavor. The details provided are usually salacious or grim. There isn't much self awareness on display. A more glib reader would view this as a monument to Daddy Duff: see, I haven't wasted my potential.
There was an awareness towards the end that the Eastern Mediterranean was irrevocably changed in the sixth and seventh centuries with first the arrival of the Slavs to the Balkans and then in the Arabian Peninsula with the advent of Islam. Those happenings run at odds with the geography-only thesis of Braudel, but not entirely, as Constantinople held so the Saracens were forced to travers North Africa and enter Europe through Iberia. I didn't care for this as much as I did The Middle Sea: A History of the Mediterranean but alas I am but a third of the way through the project.
Late in this volume I contemplated my decision not to read the abridged compendium of the three volumes. That matter remains unresolved. What we have is a vast narrative history without much in terms of cause or flavor. The details provided are usually salacious or grim. There isn't much self awareness on display. A more glib reader would view this as a monument to Daddy Duff: see, I haven't wasted my potential.
There was an awareness towards the end that the Eastern Mediterranean was irrevocably changed in the sixth and seventh centuries with first the arrival of the Slavs to the Balkans and then in the Arabian Peninsula with the advent of Islam. Those happenings run at odds with the geography-only thesis of Braudel, but not entirely, as Constantinople held so the Saracens were forced to travers North Africa and enter Europe through Iberia. I didn't care for this as much as I did The Middle Sea: A History of the Mediterranean but alas I am but a third of the way through the project.
March 19, 2024
Ренесансовите фрески в Капелата на Медичите поднасят една изненада: портрет на предпоследния византийски император Йоан VIII Палеолог. Съдбата на последните неколцина византийски императори е повече от нерадостна: последният пада в бой с турците през 1453 г. върху руините на завладения град, за да не бъде заловен жив; предходните двама отдават живота си в търсене на невъзможното спасение на своя град, който в единствената останка, до която се е свила някога могъщата империя. Те шестват из християнския запад с години, готови почти на всичко, включително на отказ от независимост на църквата си. Но за помощ е твърде късно - армията на полския крал Владислав Варненчик среща края си край Варна през 1444 г. и възвестява погребалния звън за последния наследник на Рим, пазил вярно над 1100 години портите на Европа от изток.
———
Цялата история на Византия (която никога не е наричала себе си така, а Източна Римска Империя) е люшкане между външни заплахи за унищожение от всички посоки на света, и вътрешни религиозни, социални и икономически катаклизми. Възникнала в резултат на катаклизъм, тя съществува, преодолявайки с нечовешка енергия всеки следващ катаклизъм, за да бъде погребана под последния.
Байрон описва Византия като сплав от римско тяло, гръцки ум и източно-мистична душа. Това творение на римското право, християнската ортодоксия и неусетно вплелите се цивилизационни останки на класическата гръцка и римска античност, е удивително съвременно в уроците си, и преодолява всяка катастрофа (освен последната) с удивителна издържливост.
Когато рационализмът на Рим се сменя с религиозния възход на християнството, Византия е тази, която го ошлайфа и институционализира. Римският папа векове наред е подчинен на византийския император и патриарх. Части на Италия са под византийски контрол дори след разграбванвто на Рим. Юстиниан I почти успява да възроди старата римска империя и построява най-бляскавата църква в света - Света София, като кодифицира в по-модерна версия старото римско право. Ираклий и потомците му подемат решително усилие за прочистване на християнството от суеверия и превръщането му в едно предимно вътрешно изживяване, забраняващо олицетворяването и бъркането му с изображения като иконите. Векове преди реформацията на запад. Но сблъсъкът между светска и религиозна власт завършва с поражение за първата. За разлика от Рим и Запада обаче върховната власт във Византия остава неизменно светската. Византия удържа приливните вълни на нивовъзникналия и войнстващ ислям, които неколкократно се разбиват в стените на Константинопол. Но победа няма, има само оцеляване - Северна Африка и Сирия са завинаги изгубени за империята. Балканите също - от колонизацията на славяни и българи. Както и Италия. Залезът започва да се спуска окончателно в мига, в който империята се отказва от защитните си механизми. Търговията е поета от новоизгряващите венецианци и генуезци, а византийският флот, владял Средиземноморието, изчезва, за да бъде заменен - срещу заплащане и отказ от суверинитет - от венецианския флот.
Истинският край на империята не идва от изток и селджукските турци, а от запад, когато през 1204 г. Четвъртият кръстоносен поход разграбва и оплячкосва Константинопол. Впоследствие Византия е раз��ъсана на части, някои от които поделени между Венецианската република (която се държи като войнстващ търговски концерн) и част от кръстоносците. Империята никога не се съвзема от този удар и последвалото е бавна агония, която обрича също България и Сърбия. Последните две държави изобщо не схващат картинката, за разлика от умния хан Тервел през 8 век, който отива да отбранява Константинопол срещу арабите. Самите Венеция и Генуа, алчно вкопчени в провалянето на търговския си конкурент, заслужено обричат собственото си бъдеще с късогледството си.
Самит�� византийци никак не са невинни - те се разпределят на властващи кланове, всеки от който граби трон, земи и данъци до дупка. Тези мафиотски кланове предпочитат да обрекат последния си шанс да прогонят надигащата се турска заплаха в битката при Манцикерт, отколкото да сформират поне временна обща лига срещу опасността. Резултатите са видими.
——
Много може да се разсъждава върху Византия. Нейната история е удивително преплетена с нашата - България е първата независима държава, която цъфва в задния двор на империята и отказва да се разкара оттам, като на моменти сама храни амбиции за Константинопол. И е също толкова късогледа за големите заплахи, вкопчена в дребнави боричкания.
У нас има добра византоложка и османистка школа, най-малко поради историческата и географската близост. Западняците на свой ред пренебрегват Византия или като Едуард Гибън - открито я презират, без ни най-малко да я разбират. Други като Кенет Кларк стигат дотам в невежото си презрение, че дори (в неговата книга за цивилизацията) я считат за ненужна бележка под линия, която нямала нищо общо с Европа и и била по-чужда даже от исляма (?!). Тези високомерни сноби обаче задават дълго време тона в историческото възприятия, и тяхното манипулативно, пропагандно опростяване ни лишава от ценно познание.
Мутафчиев, Острогорски и Норуич са представители на обратното течение. Без навирен нос и гръмовно громене, те възкресяват над 1000 изгубени години, и то само повърхностно, без задълбаване.
Лекциите на Мутафчиев са ценни с погледа си към иконоборството. Завършени през 1943 г., малко преди смъртта на професора, те са исторически документ сами по себе си. На светския поглед от първата половина на 20 век, но и на незабравения гняв от съюзническата и първата световна войни. Мутафчиев се впуска в излишно громене и морализаторстване в доста моменти, а е и откровен женомразец. Но е и ерудиран познавач, който си знае работата и успява в други моменти да е доста проницателен и аналитичен, правещ косвени паралели с новото време. Лекциите приключват с 1204 г.
Острогорски като че ли е по-премерен. Но това в само привидно. Писал през 60-те, у него дреме онази мъглява руска православна мистика, неотървала се от бляна си за Третия Рим. Острогорски замита под килима всичко иконоборско или сектантско, което не съответства на официалната (днешна) религиозна доктрина. Просто избягва да пояснява някои моменти - избира премълчаването. Не че обемът му позволява да се шири, но предпочитанията са видни. Ужасяващо неадекватен на моменти е родният превод. Не знам от коя година е, но “Прозорец” са били жестоко немарливи в редакцията не просто на имена и транслитерации, а на значение на думите! Има цели изречения без никакъв ясен смисъл просто защото преводачката не е имала представа от материята и си е измисляла значения.
Норуич ( тук , тук и тук ) е най-балансиран, може би защото е по-съвременен. Той също тълкува и дава оценки, но доста по-умерено, и някак не така яростно като Мутафчиев или подмолно като Острогорски. Недостатъкът при Норуич е, че той често се увлича в западния контекст, но не е прекалено. И уви, подобно на горните двама, не намира време за културата и изкуството.
———
Историята е сплав от несъвместимости. Не можеш да познаваш родната история без контекста. В историята рядко има добри и лоши. И историята е сбор от нишки ��ъв всички географски посоки, преминаващи през всички епохи. Изолация няма. Но пък има много липси, изгорели в пожарите, и умишлена пропаганда, предназначена както за онова отминало време, така и за бъдещите читатели. Оруеловите закони на “1984” са били прекрасно познати още през 3 в.н.е., когато започва този конкретен отрязък. Така че се иска четене с разбиране и мислене. Но най-вече четене.
February 2, 2021
John Julius Norwich (the Second Viscount Norwich) was an Oxford educated historian. A prolific writer, he was a talented historian who is able to tell a highly detailed story in a very entertaining fashion. This time his focus is on Byzantium.
This first volume covers the "Early Years" of Byzantium stretching from 323-802 AD. Starting with Constantine the Great and the founding of his city and ending with Empress Irene. The story of Byzantium is the story of the Roman Empire in the East. As the city becomes known as Constantinople, it develops its uniquely Eastern outlook on the Imperial Roman tradition. From the various political, religious, and military conflicts to the different outlooks of the Basileus (The Eastern term for "Emperor"), it is all wonderfully explained in a very entertaining manner.
There are some fascinating details inside this marvelous story (which is why reading history is so much fun) about a variety of things. For example-the entire story about Constantine seeing a vision of the Cross was written by the highly biased Christian monk Eusebius who used the words "....he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription Conquer by This (Hoc Vince). At this sight, he himself was struck with amazement, and his whole army also.." ummmm....his "whole army also" would have been 98,000 other soldiers. Strangely (it tends to happen a lot with all religions) not a single soldier has ever said that they saw anything. Only the Christian writers (who were mostly all monks or high prelates of the Church) say it happened. Some, like Christian scholar Lactantius, said Constantine saw it in a dream-this is where it becomes the sign. Thus the paragraph:
"...He says no more. We have no mention of a vision, only of a dream. There is not even a suggestion by this devout Christian apologist that the Saviour or the Cross ever appeared to the Emperor at all. As for 'the heavenly sign', it was simply the monogram of chi (X) and rho (P), the first two Greek letters in the name of Christ, that had long been a familiar symbol in Christian inscriptions..."
Hmmmm....strange how all religions eventually fall apart when one knows the basis of the story. The best part is Lord Norwich showing how Constantine himself was rather vague, if not outright denying, about the whole incident. Constantine was also hedging hisbets, in that he also seemed to be rather tolerant of other Roman/Eastern Roman gods as evidenced by his own statements and actions. Hardly the image we are presented today, since it has been retconned by nearly 1,700 of Christian propaganda about this event and the man himself. Truly fascinating.
There is also a great deal about the original underpinnings of Christianity and how people were trying to get the story straight. Rather reminds me of an RPG where the changes in the lore between the 1st volume and the 3rd can be quite noticeable, such as the case with Christianity as negotiations and retconning become the basis for what, millennia and a half later, is taken as literal truth. Lord Norwich also demonstrates that Constantine, at first, wasn't exclusively Christian and gave respect to other pagan entities.
Other fascinating things- Helena, Constantine's mother, who visited the Holy Places (and allegedly "found" the True Cross in a cistern in Rome. Yeah sure. Of course she did), which makes her the first Christian pilgrim and the start of pilgrimages to the Holy Land.
During the reign of Theodosius (395 AD) he claimed that the edict proclaiming that only those who professed the consubstantiality of the Trinity (the Nicene Creed) could be considered "Catholic"- the first time this designation appears.
From the foundation of the city, to the various Emperors, and into the various enemies (Attila to Totilla)-this book is at once sweeping in scope, yet with a finely detailed grasp of the finer details make this a superb history book. Well written and always engaging, Lord Norwich's history of Byzantium ranks among the best works of its kind. I shall be getting the next book as soon as I can hunt it down. Highly recommended.
This first volume covers the "Early Years" of Byzantium stretching from 323-802 AD. Starting with Constantine the Great and the founding of his city and ending with Empress Irene. The story of Byzantium is the story of the Roman Empire in the East. As the city becomes known as Constantinople, it develops its uniquely Eastern outlook on the Imperial Roman tradition. From the various political, religious, and military conflicts to the different outlooks of the Basileus (The Eastern term for "Emperor"), it is all wonderfully explained in a very entertaining manner.
There are some fascinating details inside this marvelous story (which is why reading history is so much fun) about a variety of things. For example-the entire story about Constantine seeing a vision of the Cross was written by the highly biased Christian monk Eusebius who used the words "....he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription Conquer by This (Hoc Vince). At this sight, he himself was struck with amazement, and his whole army also.." ummmm....his "whole army also" would have been 98,000 other soldiers. Strangely (it tends to happen a lot with all religions) not a single soldier has ever said that they saw anything. Only the Christian writers (who were mostly all monks or high prelates of the Church) say it happened. Some, like Christian scholar Lactantius, said Constantine saw it in a dream-this is where it becomes the sign. Thus the paragraph:
"...He says no more. We have no mention of a vision, only of a dream. There is not even a suggestion by this devout Christian apologist that the Saviour or the Cross ever appeared to the Emperor at all. As for 'the heavenly sign', it was simply the monogram of chi (X) and rho (P), the first two Greek letters in the name of Christ, that had long been a familiar symbol in Christian inscriptions..."
Hmmmm....strange how all religions eventually fall apart when one knows the basis of the story. The best part is Lord Norwich showing how Constantine himself was rather vague, if not outright denying, about the whole incident. Constantine was also hedging hisbets, in that he also seemed to be rather tolerant of other Roman/Eastern Roman gods as evidenced by his own statements and actions. Hardly the image we are presented today, since it has been retconned by nearly 1,700 of Christian propaganda about this event and the man himself. Truly fascinating.
There is also a great deal about the original underpinnings of Christianity and how people were trying to get the story straight. Rather reminds me of an RPG where the changes in the lore between the 1st volume and the 3rd can be quite noticeable, such as the case with Christianity as negotiations and retconning become the basis for what, millennia and a half later, is taken as literal truth. Lord Norwich also demonstrates that Constantine, at first, wasn't exclusively Christian and gave respect to other pagan entities.
Other fascinating things- Helena, Constantine's mother, who visited the Holy Places (and allegedly "found" the True Cross in a cistern in Rome. Yeah sure. Of course she did), which makes her the first Christian pilgrim and the start of pilgrimages to the Holy Land.
During the reign of Theodosius (395 AD) he claimed that the edict proclaiming that only those who professed the consubstantiality of the Trinity (the Nicene Creed) could be considered "Catholic"- the first time this designation appears.
From the foundation of the city, to the various Emperors, and into the various enemies (Attila to Totilla)-this book is at once sweeping in scope, yet with a finely detailed grasp of the finer details make this a superb history book. Well written and always engaging, Lord Norwich's history of Byzantium ranks among the best works of its kind. I shall be getting the next book as soon as I can hunt it down. Highly recommended.
January 8, 2011
I love the way Norwich delves into the labyrinthine politics of the time. I haven't read the other two books in the series, but some day I will, perhaps when I'm old and grey and good for nothing else. So that hopefully will be a while yet. Norwich writes wittily and knowledgeably as one of the leading experts. I think I have a problem with time and change. I watched a BBC documentary series about Turkey in 1971 called The Gates of Asia. I remembered him having a healthy virility about him, sunburnt and muscular as he crouched over carvings in the scorching sun of Eastern Turkey in the summer, and yet when he came on TV a few months ago in connection with an art series I was shocked to see a stooped old man, forgetting that 38 years separated the two. I've noticed a few lines in my own face, but must confess that on balance I feel I am wiser, more confident and knowledgeable, and better looking, than I was even thirty years ago. What has all this to do with Byzantium. Byzantium, the fabulous city of gold, the city of the world's desire, is also a state of mind, I feel, a throwback, a yearning, for a time when anything was possible. A lost golden age, like youth and love. Something radiant in the heart.
Once out of nature I shall never take
My bodily form from any natural thing,
But such a form as Grecian goldsmiths make
Of hammered gold and gold enamelling
To keep a drowsy Emperor awake;
Or set upon a golden bough to sing
To lords and ladies of Byzantium
Of what is past, or passing, or to come.
Once out of nature I shall never take
My bodily form from any natural thing,
But such a form as Grecian goldsmiths make
Of hammered gold and gold enamelling
To keep a drowsy Emperor awake;
Or set upon a golden bough to sing
To lords and ladies of Byzantium
Of what is past, or passing, or to come.
June 27, 2014
THIS IS HISTORY AT ITS FINEST. Infinity plus one out of infinity stars...Norwich triumphs! The Byzantines brim with Roman pride, brainwashed Christianity, brutal violence, and a near constant struggle for power. Norwich breathes life into the "Dark Ages" like never before. This first of three books covers the late 200s to the early 800s, and I was shocked at the fantastic stories and vital historical connections made throughout. Any professional or amateur historian ought to read this; I know I will read it again decades from now with just as much pleasure. I devoured it in about 2 weeks at the expense of my job and social life.
My top five parts (although we could have a field day with a much longer list):
5) The Persian-Byzantine War involving Chosroes II and Heraclius which battered both sides so bad that it allowed the Muslims to rise
4) The EPIC conquest between Belisarius and Totila to get the Western Roman Empire back
3) All of the religious councils to settle early religious disputes...for the Byzantines it was one Emperor, one faith, and they took this very seriously
2) Justinian II's horrific rise, fall, rise, fall roller coaster ride as Emperor. A movie needs to be made here!
1) The Nika Riots - Justinian I brutally suppresses a revolt...really all of Justinian's reign is superb
Again, awesome book, I highly recommend it!
My top five parts (although we could have a field day with a much longer list):
5) The Persian-Byzantine War involving Chosroes II and Heraclius which battered both sides so bad that it allowed the Muslims to rise
4) The EPIC conquest between Belisarius and Totila to get the Western Roman Empire back
3) All of the religious councils to settle early religious disputes...for the Byzantines it was one Emperor, one faith, and they took this very seriously
2) Justinian II's horrific rise, fall, rise, fall roller coaster ride as Emperor. A movie needs to be made here!
1) The Nika Riots - Justinian I brutally suppresses a revolt...really all of Justinian's reign is superb
Again, awesome book, I highly recommend it!
November 19, 2022
Consatine is cooked
Chi-Rho looks pretty cool
What is the nature of Christ?
Severely weaken empire multiple times over the question of the Jesus juice
Justinian big builds
Chariot racing hooligans - literally called green team and blue team
Fell in love with empress Theodora. It's not healthy for me to fall in love with women from the 500s
Belisarius is best bro. Big feels for the guy
Empire goes to shit
Heraclius saves empire then loses his mind - classic
Greek fire solves a lot of problems.
Goes to shit again
Empire saved again leo by Leo but fucks up with getting iconoclasm started
Chipping off noses gets popular
A change in trend from nose cutting to putting out eyes
Donation of Constantine is proto mergers and acquisitions
Rebirth of infatuation for empress Irene. Time period does not change the level of unhealthiness.
Chi-Rho looks pretty cool
What is the nature of Christ?
Severely weaken empire multiple times over the question of the Jesus juice
Justinian big builds
Chariot racing hooligans - literally called green team and blue team
Fell in love with empress Theodora. It's not healthy for me to fall in love with women from the 500s
Belisarius is best bro. Big feels for the guy
Empire goes to shit
Heraclius saves empire then loses his mind - classic
Greek fire solves a lot of problems.
Goes to shit again
Empire saved again leo by Leo but fucks up with getting iconoclasm started
Chipping off noses gets popular
A change in trend from nose cutting to putting out eyes
Donation of Constantine is proto mergers and acquisitions
Rebirth of infatuation for empress Irene. Time period does not change the level of unhealthiness.
August 12, 2024
поселившись в Македонии, нельзя не осознавать, что чуть ли не целиком она стоит на Византии: буквально ходишь по культурным слоям глубиной почти в три тысячи лет. а в этом месте у меня, как и у всех совецких детей, провал в историческом образовании. школьная история древнего мира заканчивалась на крахе Западной Римской империи, вторжениях варваров, гуннов и прочей дикой братии, а дальше прожектор наркомпроса смещался уже на т.н. "средние века", т.е, государства всяких франков, выросшие на ее обломках. и начинались "темные века", хотя тьмы там было явно поменьше, чем ныне. в историю ссср, как легко догадаться, Византия тоже не весьма вписывалась, ну кроме, разве что, байки про шит на вратах Цареграда.
почему так вышло я не знаю, бо специально историей не занимался, но у меня есть версия, что совдетям столько Византии не давали, потому что тогда бы пришлось подробно рассказывать о христианстве, мало того - о православии, а у нас научный атеизьм. что же преподают в средних школах сейчас, я не знаю, но вряд ли что-то хорошее, скорее всего какую-нибудь хуйню. вряд ли даже православие преподают правдиво, уж больно неприглядна история христианства вообще, ибо ведь даже Аммиан Марцеллин, штатный историк Юлиана Отступника, в свое время писал:
No wild beasts are so hostile to men as are Christian sects in general to one another. (Ammianus Marcellinus, XXII, v, 4)
почему, кстати, Юлиана называют Отступником, решительно неясно - вернее почему за столько веков не стряхнули с него христианское погоняло. отступником же он не был даже с точки зрения тогдашних христиан, потому что никогда не был христианином (так, пару раз в церковку заходил). наоборот, он всегда хранил исключительную верность древним богам античного пантеона.
в общем, такие исторические нарративы, как у Нориджа (которого русские, по своему пролеткультовскому безграмотному обыкновению, называют Норвичем), как выяснилось, мне вполне нравятся: все дело здесь в угле зрения и масштабе. это такая "война престолов", только в реале - ну или примерно в нем. также и херберт привольно занимал отсюда для своей фиготени про планету учкудук, только делал это без особого огонька и таланта. а в истории, между тем, есть и персонажи, и сюжеты, и детали, готовые для настоящей литературы. также при чтении все-таки возникает некое подобие общей картины, хоть и не обязательно точное. запомнить же всю эту династическую и междуусобную хуету не представляется возможным, конечно. ну а местные друзья надо мной хихикают, говорят, что история Византии еще не закончена и продолжается, потому что в Византии мы и живем до сих пор.
...что, в общем, не удивительно, потому что переселения народов, например, и обмены населения не в 20 века придумали. в 7 век�� уже славян на южный берег Мраморного моря организованно переселяли, так что между турками и греками это что-то родственное. а кроме того чистки лучших военачальников тоже не сталин придумал, а, как минимум, Юстиниан Безносый.
...с иконоборчеством Лео Сирийца тоже интересно: я не знал, например, что идолопоклонство в христианстве (задолго до раскола) обрело такие пропорции, что сами по себе иконы могли выступать в роли крестных родителей при крещении (идолопоклонники уместно при этом назывались "иконодулами"). тут хочешь не хочешь, а начнешь с пониманием относиться к исламскому хараму на фигуративное искусство. понятно, что идолопоклонство это не изведено и по сию пору, тьху, смотреть противно. только теперь оно частью сакрализовано в музэях и галереях, конечно, а там, к счастью, к иконам негигиенично не прикладываются, могут разве что борщом облить.
...протоправославие, кстати не мешало некоторым императорам (мы не знаем про остальное население, главгерои тут императоры) быть, например, гомосексуалистами или бисексуалами. и нормально так монтировалось - возможно, от того, что вопрос религиозно-метафизический, о божественной или человеческой природе бога т.е., они тоже не до конца решили. потом, конечно, все стало гораздо скучнее.
...также в контексте хорошо видно, в какой именно миг и зачем из своих песков на цивилизованный мир полезла исламская саранча, "сторонники самой миролюбивой религии в мире", которые успокоиться не могут до сих пор, эти реликтовые ковролеты и камнепоклонники.
из странного: автор явно путает Херсонес Таврический, Херсон и Корсунь-Шевченковский, да и с другими нынешними топонимами, особенно к северу от Черного моря, у него в голове каша.
почему так вышло я не знаю, бо специально историей не занимался, но у меня есть версия, что совдетям столько Византии не давали, потому что тогда бы пришлось подробно рассказывать о христианстве, мало того - о православии, а у нас научный атеизьм. что же преподают в средних школах сейчас, я не знаю, но вряд ли что-то хорошее, скорее всего какую-нибудь хуйню. вряд ли даже православие преподают правдиво, уж больно неприглядна история христианства вообще, ибо ведь даже Аммиан Марцеллин, штатный историк Юлиана Отступника, в свое время писал:
No wild beasts are so hostile to men as are Christian sects in general to one another. (Ammianus Marcellinus, XXII, v, 4)
почему, кстати, Юлиана называют Отступником, решительно неясно - вернее почему за столько веков не стряхнули с него христианское погоняло. отступником же он не был даже с точки зрения тогдашних христиан, потому что никогда не был христианином (так, пару раз в церковку заходил). наоборот, он всегда хранил исключительную верность древним богам античного пантеона.
в общем, такие исторические нарративы, как у Нориджа (которого русские, по своему пролеткультовскому безграмотному обыкновению, называют Норвичем), как выяснилось, мне вполне нравятся: все дело здесь в угле зрения и масштабе. это такая "война престолов", только в реале - ну или примерно в нем. также и херберт привольно занимал отсюда для своей фиготени про планету учкудук, только делал это без особого огонька и таланта. а в истории, между тем, есть и персонажи, и сюжеты, и детали, готовые для настоящей литературы. также при чтении все-таки возникает некое подобие общей картины, хоть и не обязательно точное. запомнить же всю эту династическую и междуусобную хуету не представляется возможным, конечно. ну а местные друзья надо мной хихикают, говорят, что история Византии еще не закончена и продолжается, потому что в Византии мы и живем до сих пор.
...что, в общем, не удивительно, потому что переселения народов, например, и обмены населения не в 20 века придумали. в 7 век�� уже славян на южный берег Мраморного моря организованно переселяли, так что между турками и греками это что-то родственное. а кроме того чистки лучших военачальников тоже не сталин придумал, а, как минимум, Юстиниан Безносый.
...с иконоборчеством Лео Сирийца тоже интересно: я не знал, например, что идолопоклонство в христианстве (задолго до раскола) обрело такие пропорции, что сами по себе иконы могли выступать в роли крестных родителей при крещении (идолопоклонники уместно при этом назывались "иконодулами"). тут хочешь не хочешь, а начнешь с пониманием относиться к исламскому хараму на фигуративное искусство. понятно, что идолопоклонство это не изведено и по сию пору, тьху, смотреть противно. только теперь оно частью сакрализовано в музэях и галереях, конечно, а там, к счастью, к иконам негигиенично не прикладываются, могут разве что борщом облить.
...протоправославие, кстати не мешало некоторым императорам (мы не знаем про остальное население, главгерои тут императоры) быть, например, гомосексуалистами или бисексуалами. и нормально так монтировалось - возможно, от того, что вопрос религиозно-метафизический, о божественной или человеческой природе бога т.е., они тоже не до конца решили. потом, конечно, все стало гораздо скучнее.
...также в контексте хорошо видно, в какой именно миг и зачем из своих песков на цивилизованный мир полезла исламская саранча, "сторонники самой миролюбивой религии в мире", которые успокоиться не могут до сих пор, эти реликтовые ковролеты и камнепоклонники.
из странного: автор явно путает Херсонес Таврический, Херсон и Корсунь-Шевченковский, да и с другими нынешними топонимами, особенно к северу от Черного моря, у него в голове каша.
December 14, 2012
John Julius Norwich, author of this history of the Eastern Roman Empire from the founding of Constantinople in 330 until the coronation in 800 in Rome by the Pope of Charlemagne as rival Emperor of the West, is a jolly entertaining English upper class sort of storyteller. He has all the credentials: son of Duff and Diana Cooper, he went to Eton, then joined the diplomatic corps before retiring at 35 to write history books; he is the father of Artemis Cooper, herself married to the historian Anthony Beevor and currently biographer of the dashing English upper class travel writer and proto-Bond Patrick Leigh Fermor. And it must be said, his stories are pithy and colourful, designed to extract the last ounce of entertainment value from that previous aristocracy, the Roman-cum-Byzantine. He plucks a juicy summary from the sources, eliminates any tedious ingredients, enlivens it with crisp judgments, peppers it with anecdotal footnotes, and moves on. No sins of commission to complain about; though as he admits, he finds people more interesting than trends. The common people carry on, popping up occasionally to rise in support of or against this or that emperor, regent, patriarch, powerbroker. Yah boo hiss hooray they go, and the pantomime continues, within the hippodrome and without, but mostly beyond the heavily guarded end of the passage that connects to the imperial quarters.
August 9, 2011
Norwich at his knowledgeable best. Read and enjoy!
June 26, 2023
As always Norwich did not deceive. Always thorough in his research and unmatched in his skill to bring history to life. However, I'm keeping my further comments until I'll have read all 3 books.
Read
September 28, 2015Don't get the shortened version, it'll seem too rushed. Norwich is a master storyteller with an eye for details, and livens up the thousand plus year history of the Byzantine Empire as the entertaining soap opera that it really was. Also goes into the fall of the west in his first book with sufficient detail to be a solid book on the fall of the western Roman Empire as well.
July 31, 2021
This is one of those unique works of history where a very competent writer—Norwich's prose is reminiscent of Gibbon and Durant (though no one, in my heart, competes with Durant)--takes on a subject that necessitates both eloquence and wit. The Early Centuries begins with the Emperor Diocletian's splitting of the empire in two, to be shared by two men, and his subsequent abdication of the throne to be a cabbage farmer. It ends, five hundred years later with the papal coronation of Charlemagne, the "jumped up barbarian chieften." Needless to say, this book is not at all large enough to cover 500 hundred years to be the "full version" of the story next to Norwich's single-volume work on the Byzantine Empire. This is the biggest, and only, flaw to me. The meat of the book is about 360 pages, and Norwich explicitly does not go into much detail on anything he deems not concerning "this story." Which, to me at least, would have been greatly appreciated, and I think Norwich should have written three separate thousand-page volumes, instead of three separate volumes that equal a thousand pages. Even with the very sparse and far-reaching primary sources, I think he could have written a lot more.
Despite this shortcoming, Norwich tells this story impeccably, often providing that historian commentary that I really love to see. It is almost strange that, in my opinion, historical works on antiquity really seem to be the exact time period for modern historians to really show distinctly pleasurable prose writing. Here is an example of Norwich's truly exemplary use of the English language:
"The fourth century had been a fateful one indeed for the Roman Empire. It had seen the birth of a new capital on the Bosphorus--a capital which, although not yet the sole focus of a united political state, was steadily growing in size and importance while the world of the Western Mediterranean subsided into increasing anarchy; and it had seen the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Emperor and his subjects. It ended, however, on a note of bathos: in the West with silence and inertia in the face of the barbarian menace, in the East with a whimper--the only possible description for the reactions of the most feckless Emperor yet to occupy the throne of Constantinople as he watched successive strong men meet their variously violent deaths, while his own vicious and domineering wife insulted and humiliated him in public, holding him up to ridicule as a fool, an incompetent and a cuckold. The new century, on the other hand, began with a bang. In the early summer of 401, Alaric the Goth invaded Italy."
This is an example of superb historiography that is both compelling and stylistically satisfying. We also see Norwich's wit on occasion; though not as much as Durant's, it is still appreciated:
"Pelagius had been popular and universally respected; Zeno was neither. In his youth he had been renowned as an athlete--the Anonymus Valesii rather surprisingly attributes his fleetness of foot to the fact that he was born without kneecaps--but in all other fields he had been a failure."
What is interesting about this work is that it can also be considered a history of the early Christian church. The pervasiveness of religion in the story and its corruption is enough to pull your hair out. As well is the number of competent individuals destroyed by the incompetent; too such an extent that 1 out of 10 names in this story can bear the title of guileless or at least having any noble attributes whatsoever. With that being said, I would like to be an armchair statesmen and detail what I think are the largest defects of the Byzantine Empire, of which the entire history is founded on terrible decisions and it is remarkable that it lasted more than a century let alone ten centuries.
First off, of course is the worst decision Constantine the Great made at the very outset of this history: involving religion in his statecraft. The Empire would have been a thousand times better with a secular government. Over and over Norwich relates how provinces are falling left and right, yet the Emperor, no matter who, was too busy with theologic disputes to take care of his subjects. Annoyingly so, emperor after successive emperor meddles in religious affairs to which either he kills his subjects for something as trivial as thinking Christ is of the same Energy as God rather than the same nature, or he himself is deposed because of something just as trivial. It is absolutely absurd to see that constantly with nearly every sovereign becoming victim of this same fate.
Next is the raising up of the Emperors' wives to the rank of Augusta and giving them any power at all. We can even spread this to the entire nepotistic issue of a monarchy in general, but the Augustas throughout this story cause much unneeded detrimant to a unified rule. We see this most especially in the power that Theodora, the wife of Justinian I, and that of Irene held. Causing untold dissension and bloodshed, and unltimately undermining the good that their husbands would try to do.
The last that I'll speak of is that of many Emperors' myopic and self-mutilating choice of purging their own subjects. The Bulgars, the Arabs, The Huns, any amount of barbarian tribes are sacking Byzantine towns, yet the Emporors constantly whittle down their own competent soldiers and citizens for stupid reasons. Invariably, this even leads to the death of the Emperor in a coup. Its like none of the Emperors gave time to the history of their own seat, rather than giving all time and thought to theology.
This is a book full of tragedy and intrigue, worst of all, in my opinion, is that of Belisarius. But I wholeheartedly recommend this book to all. The story of the Byzantines has been a blank spot in my knowledge of history for too long, and it is such an important subject that I believe more historians should stop obsessing over the period of the Republic's fall, and start exploring this much more interesting subject.
Despite this shortcoming, Norwich tells this story impeccably, often providing that historian commentary that I really love to see. It is almost strange that, in my opinion, historical works on antiquity really seem to be the exact time period for modern historians to really show distinctly pleasurable prose writing. Here is an example of Norwich's truly exemplary use of the English language:
"The fourth century had been a fateful one indeed for the Roman Empire. It had seen the birth of a new capital on the Bosphorus--a capital which, although not yet the sole focus of a united political state, was steadily growing in size and importance while the world of the Western Mediterranean subsided into increasing anarchy; and it had seen the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Emperor and his subjects. It ended, however, on a note of bathos: in the West with silence and inertia in the face of the barbarian menace, in the East with a whimper--the only possible description for the reactions of the most feckless Emperor yet to occupy the throne of Constantinople as he watched successive strong men meet their variously violent deaths, while his own vicious and domineering wife insulted and humiliated him in public, holding him up to ridicule as a fool, an incompetent and a cuckold. The new century, on the other hand, began with a bang. In the early summer of 401, Alaric the Goth invaded Italy."
This is an example of superb historiography that is both compelling and stylistically satisfying. We also see Norwich's wit on occasion; though not as much as Durant's, it is still appreciated:
"Pelagius had been popular and universally respected; Zeno was neither. In his youth he had been renowned as an athlete--the Anonymus Valesii rather surprisingly attributes his fleetness of foot to the fact that he was born without kneecaps--but in all other fields he had been a failure."
What is interesting about this work is that it can also be considered a history of the early Christian church. The pervasiveness of religion in the story and its corruption is enough to pull your hair out. As well is the number of competent individuals destroyed by the incompetent; too such an extent that 1 out of 10 names in this story can bear the title of guileless or at least having any noble attributes whatsoever. With that being said, I would like to be an armchair statesmen and detail what I think are the largest defects of the Byzantine Empire, of which the entire history is founded on terrible decisions and it is remarkable that it lasted more than a century let alone ten centuries.
First off, of course is the worst decision Constantine the Great made at the very outset of this history: involving religion in his statecraft. The Empire would have been a thousand times better with a secular government. Over and over Norwich relates how provinces are falling left and right, yet the Emperor, no matter who, was too busy with theologic disputes to take care of his subjects. Annoyingly so, emperor after successive emperor meddles in religious affairs to which either he kills his subjects for something as trivial as thinking Christ is of the same Energy as God rather than the same nature, or he himself is deposed because of something just as trivial. It is absolutely absurd to see that constantly with nearly every sovereign becoming victim of this same fate.
Next is the raising up of the Emperors' wives to the rank of Augusta and giving them any power at all. We can even spread this to the entire nepotistic issue of a monarchy in general, but the Augustas throughout this story cause much unneeded detrimant to a unified rule. We see this most especially in the power that Theodora, the wife of Justinian I, and that of Irene held. Causing untold dissension and bloodshed, and unltimately undermining the good that their husbands would try to do.
The last that I'll speak of is that of many Emperors' myopic and self-mutilating choice of purging their own subjects. The Bulgars, the Arabs, The Huns, any amount of barbarian tribes are sacking Byzantine towns, yet the Emporors constantly whittle down their own competent soldiers and citizens for stupid reasons. Invariably, this even leads to the death of the Emperor in a coup. Its like none of the Emperors gave time to the history of their own seat, rather than giving all time and thought to theology.
This is a book full of tragedy and intrigue, worst of all, in my opinion, is that of Belisarius. But I wholeheartedly recommend this book to all. The story of the Byzantines has been a blank spot in my knowledge of history for too long, and it is such an important subject that I believe more historians should stop obsessing over the period of the Republic's fall, and start exploring this much more interesting subject.
August 29, 2015
The first part of John Julius Norwich's Byzantium trilogy is an epic look at a once great civilization that is often little studied in modern times. This is the account of what happened after the Roman Empire "fell," and how it struggled on for hundreds more years. The Early Centuries covers Constantine the Great to the beginnings of the Holy Roman Empire in the West, and chronicles the growth of one of the worlds greatest cities, Constantinople, as well as the ever shifting borders of the slowly decaying empire. The religious splinters that led up to the Schism between East and West are covered, as well as the rise of Islam, and Byzantium's dynamic role in holding back the armies of Arabia. Truly an epic read if you are interested in this time period, Norwich's book is factual as well as entertaining, and this book is a must read for history buffs everywhere.
April 6, 2021
In spite of the startling biases that the author is quite comfortable holding (in the 1970s), his storytelling is sassy and companionable, and a lot of fun to read. I love the way he quotes Gibbon as though his buddy Gibbon (who precedes Norwich by 200 years and is even more sassy) laid this quip on him the other day at dinner. It's sort of like being told the history of the Byzantine Empire by an old British university professor, waving a cigar and holding a glass of brandy, by the fire, while he punctuates the narrative with indefensible slurs or a wink and nudge that makes you uncomfortable, but you're still sitting there in awe of the effect of the setting, and of being in the presence of academic royalty. It's a little like that.
May 10, 2017
La magnificenza, nella bellezza e nell'orrore, dell'Impero Romano d'Oriente non cessa di affascinarmi. La cultura, la forza, gli intrighi, la violenza, la religiosità, la teologia ... nulla è piccolo qui.
September 6, 2013
This review also appears on my blog www.silashruparell.com
My one liner: Fratricide, Patricide, Matricide, Infanticide, Blood, Guts, Gore, Pillage, Murder, Incest, Intrigue, Betrayal, Incompetence, Brilliance, Genius, Aggression, Passion, Fervour, Docility, Stupidity, Hubris. In other words the first five hundred years of the Byzantine Empire as described by John Julius Norwich in this classic account.
“After over half a century of contact with the Romans, his people had become perhaps one degree less bestial than at their first arrival; but the vast majority still lived and slept in the open, disdaining all agriculture and even cooked foods – though they would often soften raw meat by putting it between their thighs and their horses’ flanks as they rode. For clothing they favoured tunics made, rather surprisingly, from the skins of fieldmice, crudely stitched together; this they wore continuously, without ever removing them, until they dropped off of their own accord. And as they had always done, they still practically lived on their horses, eating, trading, holding their councils, even sleeping in the saddle.”
The Huns were a savage tribe which smashed their way out of the Central Asian steppes around 376AD. Attila the Hun, “the scourge of God”, led a series of attacks on the Byzantine Empire and built up a vast dominion stretching from Constantinople to the Balkans in the East to Italy and France in the West. He came within a whisker of invading Rome itself.
The Hun invasion is just one example of the incursions and travails that beset the Byzantine Empire during the period covered in this book, 300 to 800AD.
This colourful account by John Julius Norwich tells the story of the early Byzantine Empire, established by Emperor Constantine I (“Constantine the Great”) in 311 AD in the new city of Constantinople on the banks of the River Bosphorus. The New Rome.
Whilst the Pope, and hence the religious centre, of the Roman Empire continued to be seated in Rome, the political centre had now gravitated towards the East.
It was not a smooth and unambiguous transition, and often there were
Co-Emperors, one for Byzantium and one for the West of the Roman Empire.
However, throughout the period of this volume, there was one inalienable and unargued article of faith for every Byzantine (and from which they drew strength of unity in times of turmoil), namely that the Emperor (or Co-Emperor) was the sole Vice-Gerent of God on earth. This volume ends with the shattering of that practice in the most remarkable way in the year 800AD. Pope Leo III produces a document (proved to be fraudulent only several centuries later) entitled the “Donation of Constantine”, pursuant to which Constantine the Great had allegedly, 500 years earlier, “retired” to the “province” of Byzantium, having bestowed on the Pope the right to confer the title of Emperor.
By this document the Frankish ruler Charles (“Charlemagne”) was crowned
Emperor by Pope Leo and despatched to Byzantium to replace the supposed Empress Irene whose reign over Byzantium had been an economic and political
disaster.
Of course, the transition was helped by another factor: “That the Empress was notorious for having blinded and murdered her own son was, in the minds of both Leo and Charles, immaterial: it was enough that she was a woman. The female sex was known to be incapable of governing, and by the old Salic tradition was debarred from doing so.”
In between the bookends of Constantine the Great and Charlemagne, we read of a fascinating period of Christian history. Of Emperors who were disastrous. Of others who ruled Byzantium with skill, care and competence.
For example Heraclius came to the throne in 610 AD. He introduced a new structure into the eastern side of Byzantium, organising it along military
lines:
- The part of Asia Minor (the northeast coastline running from Selifke in the Mediterranean to Rize on the Black Sea) which had recently been recaptured from the Persians was divided into four “Themes”, or regions. The choice of word was significant, because tema was the Greek word for a division of troops, thus underlining the warlike division of the region.
- Each tema was put under the governorship of a“strategos”, or military governor.
- A reserve army was maintained by providing potential soldiers with inalienable grants of land, in return for hereditary military service if called up.
- The net result was that Heraclius did not have to rely on ad hoc recruiting or on doing deals with dodgy barbarians in order to raise an army.
On the economic front he fixed the parlous fiscal position of the Imperial economy through:
- Taxation and government borrowing
- Restitution from supporters of the previous corrupt regime
- Subsidies from “friends and family” in Africa
- Most importantly however, he persuaded Patriarch Sergius, the Archbishop of Constantinople, to declare that the coming war would be a religious war. Hence all of the Church assets and treasure would be at the disposal of the Emperor.
Leadership 101 for aspiring modern warmongerer.
You will need to read the book to find out what became of Heraclius.
Every Emperor was confronted by tribes trying to nick territory. The Gauls and Franks perennially switching their loyalties to and from Rome. The Lombards (from modern Germany and Austria) settling in Northern Italy. The Slavs trying to take the Balkans. The Goths, the Vandals and Huns having to be bought off or fought off.
But, there are two stand-out foes of Byzantine Christendom over this period.
First, the Persian Empire, whose rulers always seemed to have the knack for knowing when they had the upper hand. As an example, in 359AD Emperor Constantius II receives a letter from the Persian King:
“Shapur, King of Kings, brother of the Sun and the Moon, sends salutation...
Your own authors are witness that the entire territory within the river Strymon and the borders of Macedon was once held by my forefathers; were I to require you to restore all of this, it would not ill-become me...but because I take delight in moderation I shall be content to receive Mesopotamia and Armenia which were fraudulently extorted from my grandfather. I give you warning that if my ambassador returns empty-handed, I shall take the field against you, with all my armies, as soon as the winter is past.”
I guess a lawyer would call that a Letter Before Action.
And of course the other formidable challenge to Byzantium was the rise of Islam.
In 633 AD, shortly after the foundation of the religion, it suddenly “burst out of Arabia.” First Damascus, then Jerusalem. Next, the whole of Syria. Egypt and
Armenia fell within the decade. The whole Persian Empire was subsumed within 20 years. And then Afghanistan and Punjab within another 10 years.
To the West, North Africa and Spain. Across the Pyrenees and finally checked
at the banks of the Loire.
The rest, as they say, is history.
The various Emperors acceded and reigned using diverse styles of governance and deployed some interesting procedural instruments.
The Emperor Maurice, though fundamentally a good man, faced financial
pressures as a result of the extravagance and incompetence of his predecessor. Around 602AD he introduced austerity measures, but went too far, at one point cutting military rations by 25%, refusing to ransom 12,000 captives of the Avars (leading to them being put to death), and decreeing that the army should not return to base for winter but should sit it out in inhospitable territory beyond the Danube. Eventually he become so unpopular that he took the decision to flee to Persia (with whose king he had previously concluded a truce), taking his family with him.
His successor Phocas, embarked on a brutal purge of all his enemies.
“Debauched, drunk, and almost pathologically cruel, he loved, we are told, nothing so much as the sight of blood..; it was Phocas who introduced the gallows and the rack, the bindings and mutilation which were to cast a sinister shadow over the centuries to come.”
First, Phocas despatched troops to Asia and killed Maurice and family. Then he exterminated his own brother and nephew. Plus a whole bunch of military men. He even managed to kill Narses, his best general in the East. Unsurprisingly, the Persians took their chance, invaded, and took
significant chunks of territory, including Mesopotamia, Syria, Armenia,
Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, and Galatia.
Other examples abound.
Julian the Apostate, who eventually became Emperor in 361 AD, had to bide his time (indeed he didn’t really have imperial designs, and in fact was a sort of travelling scholar, and by all accounts a little bit of a geek).
His cousin Constantius II preceded him as Emperor. He had had Julian’s father and stepbrother killed when Julian was a young child. Constantius made the error of elevating Julian, appointing him as the Caesar of Gaul. Julian must have had a festering hatred for Constantius II. He bided his time, and then led an army against Constantius.
This book has some other useful features. The tables of lineages, emperors and family trees, the maps and illustration all add to understanding. Moreover there is a tourist guide, providing a list of the Byzantine monuments still surviving in Istanbul today.
I agree with the author in his Introduction that Byzantium is an era of history under-taught in schools, yet it has more than enough material to capture the imagination of a schoolchild.
The narrative of this book is tight, so it leads you swiftly from one reign to another quite seamlessly.
And that perhaps, is a clue to the central message of the book.
Dynasties come and go. Some leaders are good people, some are bad, most a bit of both. They are able to wield huge power. And yet they are all merely human beings powerless against the passage of time and events.
My one liner: Fratricide, Patricide, Matricide, Infanticide, Blood, Guts, Gore, Pillage, Murder, Incest, Intrigue, Betrayal, Incompetence, Brilliance, Genius, Aggression, Passion, Fervour, Docility, Stupidity, Hubris. In other words the first five hundred years of the Byzantine Empire as described by John Julius Norwich in this classic account.
“After over half a century of contact with the Romans, his people had become perhaps one degree less bestial than at their first arrival; but the vast majority still lived and slept in the open, disdaining all agriculture and even cooked foods – though they would often soften raw meat by putting it between their thighs and their horses’ flanks as they rode. For clothing they favoured tunics made, rather surprisingly, from the skins of fieldmice, crudely stitched together; this they wore continuously, without ever removing them, until they dropped off of their own accord. And as they had always done, they still practically lived on their horses, eating, trading, holding their councils, even sleeping in the saddle.”
The Huns were a savage tribe which smashed their way out of the Central Asian steppes around 376AD. Attila the Hun, “the scourge of God”, led a series of attacks on the Byzantine Empire and built up a vast dominion stretching from Constantinople to the Balkans in the East to Italy and France in the West. He came within a whisker of invading Rome itself.
The Hun invasion is just one example of the incursions and travails that beset the Byzantine Empire during the period covered in this book, 300 to 800AD.
This colourful account by John Julius Norwich tells the story of the early Byzantine Empire, established by Emperor Constantine I (“Constantine the Great”) in 311 AD in the new city of Constantinople on the banks of the River Bosphorus. The New Rome.
Whilst the Pope, and hence the religious centre, of the Roman Empire continued to be seated in Rome, the political centre had now gravitated towards the East.
It was not a smooth and unambiguous transition, and often there were
Co-Emperors, one for Byzantium and one for the West of the Roman Empire.
However, throughout the period of this volume, there was one inalienable and unargued article of faith for every Byzantine (and from which they drew strength of unity in times of turmoil), namely that the Emperor (or Co-Emperor) was the sole Vice-Gerent of God on earth. This volume ends with the shattering of that practice in the most remarkable way in the year 800AD. Pope Leo III produces a document (proved to be fraudulent only several centuries later) entitled the “Donation of Constantine”, pursuant to which Constantine the Great had allegedly, 500 years earlier, “retired” to the “province” of Byzantium, having bestowed on the Pope the right to confer the title of Emperor.
By this document the Frankish ruler Charles (“Charlemagne”) was crowned
Emperor by Pope Leo and despatched to Byzantium to replace the supposed Empress Irene whose reign over Byzantium had been an economic and political
disaster.
Of course, the transition was helped by another factor: “That the Empress was notorious for having blinded and murdered her own son was, in the minds of both Leo and Charles, immaterial: it was enough that she was a woman. The female sex was known to be incapable of governing, and by the old Salic tradition was debarred from doing so.”
In between the bookends of Constantine the Great and Charlemagne, we read of a fascinating period of Christian history. Of Emperors who were disastrous. Of others who ruled Byzantium with skill, care and competence.
For example Heraclius came to the throne in 610 AD. He introduced a new structure into the eastern side of Byzantium, organising it along military
lines:
- The part of Asia Minor (the northeast coastline running from Selifke in the Mediterranean to Rize on the Black Sea) which had recently been recaptured from the Persians was divided into four “Themes”, or regions. The choice of word was significant, because tema was the Greek word for a division of troops, thus underlining the warlike division of the region.
- Each tema was put under the governorship of a“strategos”, or military governor.
- A reserve army was maintained by providing potential soldiers with inalienable grants of land, in return for hereditary military service if called up.
- The net result was that Heraclius did not have to rely on ad hoc recruiting or on doing deals with dodgy barbarians in order to raise an army.
On the economic front he fixed the parlous fiscal position of the Imperial economy through:
- Taxation and government borrowing
- Restitution from supporters of the previous corrupt regime
- Subsidies from “friends and family” in Africa
- Most importantly however, he persuaded Patriarch Sergius, the Archbishop of Constantinople, to declare that the coming war would be a religious war. Hence all of the Church assets and treasure would be at the disposal of the Emperor.
Leadership 101 for aspiring modern warmongerer.
You will need to read the book to find out what became of Heraclius.
Every Emperor was confronted by tribes trying to nick territory. The Gauls and Franks perennially switching their loyalties to and from Rome. The Lombards (from modern Germany and Austria) settling in Northern Italy. The Slavs trying to take the Balkans. The Goths, the Vandals and Huns having to be bought off or fought off.
But, there are two stand-out foes of Byzantine Christendom over this period.
First, the Persian Empire, whose rulers always seemed to have the knack for knowing when they had the upper hand. As an example, in 359AD Emperor Constantius II receives a letter from the Persian King:
“Shapur, King of Kings, brother of the Sun and the Moon, sends salutation...
Your own authors are witness that the entire territory within the river Strymon and the borders of Macedon was once held by my forefathers; were I to require you to restore all of this, it would not ill-become me...but because I take delight in moderation I shall be content to receive Mesopotamia and Armenia which were fraudulently extorted from my grandfather. I give you warning that if my ambassador returns empty-handed, I shall take the field against you, with all my armies, as soon as the winter is past.”
I guess a lawyer would call that a Letter Before Action.
And of course the other formidable challenge to Byzantium was the rise of Islam.
In 633 AD, shortly after the foundation of the religion, it suddenly “burst out of Arabia.” First Damascus, then Jerusalem. Next, the whole of Syria. Egypt and
Armenia fell within the decade. The whole Persian Empire was subsumed within 20 years. And then Afghanistan and Punjab within another 10 years.
To the West, North Africa and Spain. Across the Pyrenees and finally checked
at the banks of the Loire.
The rest, as they say, is history.
The various Emperors acceded and reigned using diverse styles of governance and deployed some interesting procedural instruments.
The Emperor Maurice, though fundamentally a good man, faced financial
pressures as a result of the extravagance and incompetence of his predecessor. Around 602AD he introduced austerity measures, but went too far, at one point cutting military rations by 25%, refusing to ransom 12,000 captives of the Avars (leading to them being put to death), and decreeing that the army should not return to base for winter but should sit it out in inhospitable territory beyond the Danube. Eventually he become so unpopular that he took the decision to flee to Persia (with whose king he had previously concluded a truce), taking his family with him.
His successor Phocas, embarked on a brutal purge of all his enemies.
“Debauched, drunk, and almost pathologically cruel, he loved, we are told, nothing so much as the sight of blood..; it was Phocas who introduced the gallows and the rack, the bindings and mutilation which were to cast a sinister shadow over the centuries to come.”
First, Phocas despatched troops to Asia and killed Maurice and family. Then he exterminated his own brother and nephew. Plus a whole bunch of military men. He even managed to kill Narses, his best general in the East. Unsurprisingly, the Persians took their chance, invaded, and took
significant chunks of territory, including Mesopotamia, Syria, Armenia,
Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, and Galatia.
Other examples abound.
Julian the Apostate, who eventually became Emperor in 361 AD, had to bide his time (indeed he didn’t really have imperial designs, and in fact was a sort of travelling scholar, and by all accounts a little bit of a geek).
His cousin Constantius II preceded him as Emperor. He had had Julian’s father and stepbrother killed when Julian was a young child. Constantius made the error of elevating Julian, appointing him as the Caesar of Gaul. Julian must have had a festering hatred for Constantius II. He bided his time, and then led an army against Constantius.
This book has some other useful features. The tables of lineages, emperors and family trees, the maps and illustration all add to understanding. Moreover there is a tourist guide, providing a list of the Byzantine monuments still surviving in Istanbul today.
I agree with the author in his Introduction that Byzantium is an era of history under-taught in schools, yet it has more than enough material to capture the imagination of a schoolchild.
The narrative of this book is tight, so it leads you swiftly from one reign to another quite seamlessly.
And that perhaps, is a clue to the central message of the book.
Dynasties come and go. Some leaders are good people, some are bad, most a bit of both. They are able to wield huge power. And yet they are all merely human beings powerless against the passage of time and events.
October 25, 2020
A truly extraordinary history of how Rome became Byzantium. The rise of the Christian Empire of the East, beginning with Constantine the Great and ending its narrative with the Empress Irene’s reign, is beautifully and brilliantly told by one of the great historical writers of the past century. I am sincerely in awe of Lord Norwich’s skill, in narrating a part of history which is little known to modern readers. It is one of the finest historical works I’ve read recently; balancing art with accuracy, superbly.
April 6, 2024
A little flatter (and longer - but that's on me I knew it was 400 pages on the first 1/3 of the Byzantine Empire) than I wanted :( but not bad. It does show its age a bit in writing style.
August 21, 2021
The Byzantine Empire is the oldest empire in European history, although people often think of Byzantium as conspiracy and murder. The Byzantine Empire is also known as the Eastern Roman Empire. Before the death of the Roman Emperor Theodosius I in 395 AD, he divided the eastern and western parts of the empire with his two sons-Arcadius, who was less than eighteen years old, and Horno, who was only ten years old. Rius inherited, and from then on the Roman Empire was divided into East and West Empires, and was no longer unified.
The division of the Roman Empire originated earlier. Emperor Diocletian thought that the empire was too large, the enemies were too scattered, and the lines of communication were too long to be ruled by a single monarch. Therefore, he shared the throne with his old comrade Maximian and divided the rule. Stuff. Then, Diocletian appointed two "Caesars", one to manage the Balkans and the other to manage Gaul. The Gaul administrator, "The Pale" Constantius, was the father of Constantine the Great.
This book starts with Diocletian’s partition. On the one hand, it makes people understand that even if the Byzantine Empire eventually became an Eastern Empire, its origin is still the Roman Empire. On the other hand, it shows that the Roman Empire has This precedent for division and rule became one of the important reasons for the complete division of the Eastern and Western Roman Empire.
Unlike China, which was centered on the interior, the entire territory of the Roman Empire was based on the Mediterranean Sea. In essence, the Roman Empire was a maritime empire, and most of the people of the Roman Empire were also maritime nations. Under the influence of ancient Greece, ancient Rome rapidly expanded from a city-state to a republic in the later period. Octavian entered the era of the Roman Empire after he called it "Augustus". The Roman Empire in its heyday controlled approximately 5 million square kilometers of land, making the Mediterranean Sea its own inner sea.
Orthodox vs. Arius
Different from the later East and West Rome, the Roman Empire was a polytheistic country, and people enjoyed the freedom to practice various religions. Constantine the Great, who was the first to convert to Christianity, probably could not have predicted. The religion in which he was baptized at his deathbed laid a huge hidden danger for the glorious Roman Empire. Constantine I not only played a great role in the religion of the empire, but also determined the capital of the Roman Empire and even the Byzantine Empire-Constantinople named after him.
A religion is often divided into different factions based on the understanding of different people, and Christianity cannot avoid this fate. The so-called "Orthodox" believe that the priest himself is only an agent of Christ, and their moral conduct will not affect the effectiveness of their sacraments. The Christian faction named after its leader Arian denied "the immortality of Jesus Christ and its essential unity with the Holy Father, but believes that Jesus was created by God and will become a tool of world salvation at a certain time."
People can tolerate various religions, but cannot tolerate heresy, but the Arianism quickly flourished. The author described the most important conference in the history of Christianity in chapter two—the Council of Nicene (325 AD)—although such conferences will be held several times in subsequent centuries. On the surface, the orthodox faction that insisted on the "oneness of the father and son" won the victory. Arius and his faithful followers were expelled and exiled, but in fact the Arius faction was not greatly affected. The schizophrenia of the Eastern and Western Roman Empire thus kicked off.
Inheritance
The succession system of the Roman emperor was not the same as in ancient China, which stipulated that the father died and the son succeeded, and there was a clear eldest son system. Theoretically speaking, the emperor of the Roman Empire was elected, and there was no fixed inheritance system. In the early days, it could basically be summarized as an adopted inheritance system. When the Roman Empire was divided into two, the Eastern Roman Empire officially opened the hereditary throne, but there was still no clear inheritance system.
Starting from the death of Theodosius I in 395 AD, the Ottoman Sultan Muhammad II led an army into Constantinople in 1453 as the end point. During this thousand years, the Eastern Roman Empire has gone through 12 dynasties, totaling 93 Emperor. Often the emperor designated his son as Caesar and made him his heir. If the emperor has no children, then his brothers, nephews, sisters, daughters, son-in-laws, parents, parents-in-laws, grandsons and spouses all have the right to inherit the throne, and even the queen’s lover inherits the throne.
Without a clear inheritance system, there are often incidents of family smashing the wall. And when dissatisfied with the emperor's governance, a coup d'etat will also occur. As a result, the emperors of the Byzantine Empire were diverse, from different races and classes, and with different educational levels. The overthrown emperor was often executed, castrated, or stabbed blind.
The dynasty changed, the throne changed, and the emperors, patriarchs, generals, and inner court chiefs who appeared in the political history of Byzantium for millennia have all stepped onto the political stage. What's rare is that the author sorted out the events of these characters so clearly that people would not scratch their heads when they see all kinds of similar names. The author's pen and ink distribution is extremely even, even if Justinian the Great played an important role in the Eastern Roman Empire, he did not particularly give more pen and ink.
Internal and external troubles
The demise of Western Rome must have dealt a great blow to Eastern Rome, and it also gave Eastern Rome a chance to reunify the Roman Empire. However, the unstable succession system of the Eastern Roman Empire often caused internal consumption of the empire. Like all imperial powers, the entire political system was complicated and lacked transparency. "Byzantine court conspiracy" is often so ironic, "Byzantine power game" is more reminiscent of HBO's drama "Game of Thrones."
Although the Roman Empire has been divided, the Eastern Roman Empire still faces many opponents: the powerful Persians, the barbaric Huns, the Goths, Arabs, Saracens, Bolgars, Rus...Byzantium The geographical location and vast territory of the empire are destined to not have too many natural geographical barriers and numerous enemies. The enemies seemed to be like tides, one wave after another, the Byzantine Empire was able to persist for more than a thousand years, probably inseparable from the strong walls of Constantinople, although they were eventually wiped out by the Turks from the East.
"Byzantine Trilogy" is not an academic work, but a popular book for the general public. In an imperial country that has existed for more than a thousand years, three books of more than 500 pages can only give readers a first glimpse of the power transformation of the Eastern Roman Empire, the conflict of religions, and the cruelty of war. For readers who don't know the past and present of Byzantium, it is a good introductory book.
The division of the Roman Empire originated earlier. Emperor Diocletian thought that the empire was too large, the enemies were too scattered, and the lines of communication were too long to be ruled by a single monarch. Therefore, he shared the throne with his old comrade Maximian and divided the rule. Stuff. Then, Diocletian appointed two "Caesars", one to manage the Balkans and the other to manage Gaul. The Gaul administrator, "The Pale" Constantius, was the father of Constantine the Great.
This book starts with Diocletian’s partition. On the one hand, it makes people understand that even if the Byzantine Empire eventually became an Eastern Empire, its origin is still the Roman Empire. On the other hand, it shows that the Roman Empire has This precedent for division and rule became one of the important reasons for the complete division of the Eastern and Western Roman Empire.
Unlike China, which was centered on the interior, the entire territory of the Roman Empire was based on the Mediterranean Sea. In essence, the Roman Empire was a maritime empire, and most of the people of the Roman Empire were also maritime nations. Under the influence of ancient Greece, ancient Rome rapidly expanded from a city-state to a republic in the later period. Octavian entered the era of the Roman Empire after he called it "Augustus". The Roman Empire in its heyday controlled approximately 5 million square kilometers of land, making the Mediterranean Sea its own inner sea.
Orthodox vs. Arius
Different from the later East and West Rome, the Roman Empire was a polytheistic country, and people enjoyed the freedom to practice various religions. Constantine the Great, who was the first to convert to Christianity, probably could not have predicted. The religion in which he was baptized at his deathbed laid a huge hidden danger for the glorious Roman Empire. Constantine I not only played a great role in the religion of the empire, but also determined the capital of the Roman Empire and even the Byzantine Empire-Constantinople named after him.
A religion is often divided into different factions based on the understanding of different people, and Christianity cannot avoid this fate. The so-called "Orthodox" believe that the priest himself is only an agent of Christ, and their moral conduct will not affect the effectiveness of their sacraments. The Christian faction named after its leader Arian denied "the immortality of Jesus Christ and its essential unity with the Holy Father, but believes that Jesus was created by God and will become a tool of world salvation at a certain time."
People can tolerate various religions, but cannot tolerate heresy, but the Arianism quickly flourished. The author described the most important conference in the history of Christianity in chapter two—the Council of Nicene (325 AD)—although such conferences will be held several times in subsequent centuries. On the surface, the orthodox faction that insisted on the "oneness of the father and son" won the victory. Arius and his faithful followers were expelled and exiled, but in fact the Arius faction was not greatly affected. The schizophrenia of the Eastern and Western Roman Empire thus kicked off.
Inheritance
The succession system of the Roman emperor was not the same as in ancient China, which stipulated that the father died and the son succeeded, and there was a clear eldest son system. Theoretically speaking, the emperor of the Roman Empire was elected, and there was no fixed inheritance system. In the early days, it could basically be summarized as an adopted inheritance system. When the Roman Empire was divided into two, the Eastern Roman Empire officially opened the hereditary throne, but there was still no clear inheritance system.
Starting from the death of Theodosius I in 395 AD, the Ottoman Sultan Muhammad II led an army into Constantinople in 1453 as the end point. During this thousand years, the Eastern Roman Empire has gone through 12 dynasties, totaling 93 Emperor. Often the emperor designated his son as Caesar and made him his heir. If the emperor has no children, then his brothers, nephews, sisters, daughters, son-in-laws, parents, parents-in-laws, grandsons and spouses all have the right to inherit the throne, and even the queen’s lover inherits the throne.
Without a clear inheritance system, there are often incidents of family smashing the wall. And when dissatisfied with the emperor's governance, a coup d'etat will also occur. As a result, the emperors of the Byzantine Empire were diverse, from different races and classes, and with different educational levels. The overthrown emperor was often executed, castrated, or stabbed blind.
The dynasty changed, the throne changed, and the emperors, patriarchs, generals, and inner court chiefs who appeared in the political history of Byzantium for millennia have all stepped onto the political stage. What's rare is that the author sorted out the events of these characters so clearly that people would not scratch their heads when they see all kinds of similar names. The author's pen and ink distribution is extremely even, even if Justinian the Great played an important role in the Eastern Roman Empire, he did not particularly give more pen and ink.
Internal and external troubles
The demise of Western Rome must have dealt a great blow to Eastern Rome, and it also gave Eastern Rome a chance to reunify the Roman Empire. However, the unstable succession system of the Eastern Roman Empire often caused internal consumption of the empire. Like all imperial powers, the entire political system was complicated and lacked transparency. "Byzantine court conspiracy" is often so ironic, "Byzantine power game" is more reminiscent of HBO's drama "Game of Thrones."
Although the Roman Empire has been divided, the Eastern Roman Empire still faces many opponents: the powerful Persians, the barbaric Huns, the Goths, Arabs, Saracens, Bolgars, Rus...Byzantium The geographical location and vast territory of the empire are destined to not have too many natural geographical barriers and numerous enemies. The enemies seemed to be like tides, one wave after another, the Byzantine Empire was able to persist for more than a thousand years, probably inseparable from the strong walls of Constantinople, although they were eventually wiped out by the Turks from the East.
"Byzantine Trilogy" is not an academic work, but a popular book for the general public. In an imperial country that has existed for more than a thousand years, three books of more than 500 pages can only give readers a first glimpse of the power transformation of the Eastern Roman Empire, the conflict of religions, and the cruelty of war. For readers who don't know the past and present of Byzantium, it is a good introductory book.
November 9, 2007
The English history and travel writer John Julius Cooper, 2nd Viscount Norwich has long had a thing for the East. With Reresby Sitwell he wrote an introduction to the world of Mount Athos and subsequently, over three large volumes, produced a large history of Byzantium for popular audiences. BYZANTIUM: The Early Centuries is the first volume, going from the rise of St Constantine the Great in the early fourth century to the end of the Empress Irene's era in 802. I had mixed reactions to it.
When it comes to political history, i.e. who reigned when and who fought who, Norwich's history is quite detailed. Many palace intrigues are spicily recounted, and various hypotheses for some of the more mysterious turns of fate are collected. However, beyond the political history there is no real coverage of Byzantium culture. As other reviews have already pointed out, the goings-on of the elite are usually quite distant from the day to day life of the masses. There's no discussion of the developments of the arts or the flux of the economy. Some discussion of Byzantine culture can be had from Joan Mervyn Hussey's THE BYZANTINE WORLD, but she tries to pack an entire millennium in just a few pages.
While Norwich enjoys the culture of Eastern Christianity, he clearly is not faithful to the Eastern Orthodox Church. Quite often he questions the actions of rulers that the Church has glorified as saints, suggests that the outcome of the Ecumenical Councils was random, and insinuates that certain relics are fakes. I should think that Orthodox Christians are a fairly large market for a popular history of Byzantium, but they regrettably still await a book that sticks to Church teaching.
Since three full volumes of just political history is quite tedious, I'd recommend reading Norwich's abridgement A SHORT HISTORY OF BYZANTIUM instead.
When it comes to political history, i.e. who reigned when and who fought who, Norwich's history is quite detailed. Many palace intrigues are spicily recounted, and various hypotheses for some of the more mysterious turns of fate are collected. However, beyond the political history there is no real coverage of Byzantium culture. As other reviews have already pointed out, the goings-on of the elite are usually quite distant from the day to day life of the masses. There's no discussion of the developments of the arts or the flux of the economy. Some discussion of Byzantine culture can be had from Joan Mervyn Hussey's THE BYZANTINE WORLD, but she tries to pack an entire millennium in just a few pages.
While Norwich enjoys the culture of Eastern Christianity, he clearly is not faithful to the Eastern Orthodox Church. Quite often he questions the actions of rulers that the Church has glorified as saints, suggests that the outcome of the Ecumenical Councils was random, and insinuates that certain relics are fakes. I should think that Orthodox Christians are a fairly large market for a popular history of Byzantium, but they regrettably still await a book that sticks to Church teaching.
Since three full volumes of just political history is quite tedious, I'd recommend reading Norwich's abridgement A SHORT HISTORY OF BYZANTIUM instead.
September 18, 2014
This is a finely told history of the early part of the Byzantine Empire. With colorful stories, in depth research, and a seeming fairness, Mr. Norwich has done justice to the history of Byzantium. Though the history is convoluted and filled with scores of names and important details, there is an order here that makes the story easy enough to follow. Along the journey fascinating anecdotes and personalities emerge, along with occasional analysis which seems even-handed and balanced in an effort to tell it like it really was.
At times the thread of the story became hard to discern with the jumble of places and people that blend together in one's mind. This is not the fault of Mr. Norwich, though it would have been nice to have him step back periodically to give an overview of the key points of that segment of the history, or to let us know what was going on in the big picture at that time. Some of the most refreshing and interesting parts of the book are when Mr. Norwich gives a brief sketch of Europe, Africa, or the Middle East. These contrasts help the reader better fit the history of Byzantium in with the world at large.
Though the book would benefit from more of these breaks, Byzantium: The Early Centuries is still a very good book and well worth the read.
At times the thread of the story became hard to discern with the jumble of places and people that blend together in one's mind. This is not the fault of Mr. Norwich, though it would have been nice to have him step back periodically to give an overview of the key points of that segment of the history, or to let us know what was going on in the big picture at that time. Some of the most refreshing and interesting parts of the book are when Mr. Norwich gives a brief sketch of Europe, Africa, or the Middle East. These contrasts help the reader better fit the history of Byzantium in with the world at large.
Though the book would benefit from more of these breaks, Byzantium: The Early Centuries is still a very good book and well worth the read.
February 9, 2021
I don't usually write serious reviews, but I do want to explain my rating here since the book seems to be really well-regarded. To me, it seemed very focused on military and political history, almost exclusively discussing the succession of leaders and changes of the territory of the empire (which I'm sure is in part because it's an older book and that kind of history was more in vogue when it was written.) The book is very well-written, but the emphasis on only these areas of Byzantine history seemed reductive to me and doesn't really align with my own interests, so on a personal level, it wasn't as compelling as I'd hoped. If you're primarily interested in that type of history, though, I do recommend it!
March 17, 2009
JJ Norwich has probably forgotten more about Byzantium than half the world knows. Very intersting, but a bit tedious. This history is very (too?) centered on the byzantine emperors,their court and their actions. IMO the wider context is missing too often.
March 12, 2023
In the 380 or so pages that constitute the first volume of John Julius Norwich's magnificent history of Byzantium, the author covers the Empire's history from the rise of Constantine and the founding of his eponymous capital in the early fourth century through to the crowning of Charlemagne as emperor on Christmas Day AD 800. These were the years which saw the inherently Late Antique Roman Empire of the east evolve into a more distinct form, while the Western Roman Empire fell away, and emerge as a state most call 'Byzantine'.
In the five intervening centuries, the reader is faced by emperors both impressive and appalling - ranging from the tragic yet heroic Heraclius, who fought for three decades against Persia and the new-born religion of Islam, to the darkly intriguing Justinian II, who lost his nose to a usurper before re-capturing his throne - and Norwich does a brilliant job at bringing them all to life. It isn't just the emperors, though, that benefit from his eye for detail, and the author creates memorable character sketches for all the figures that infest his narrative.
Yet while he is assiduous is pencilling-in the little details, Norwich never fails to miss the broader strokes of history; however, it must be said that scholarship has moved on somewhat since his day, and in the three decades since it was published some of what he writes had been shown up as untrue, notably on the development of the Byzantine 'theme' system.
Nevertheless, Norwich knows how to spin a yarn - and there's no reason not to enjoy this book.
In the five intervening centuries, the reader is faced by emperors both impressive and appalling - ranging from the tragic yet heroic Heraclius, who fought for three decades against Persia and the new-born religion of Islam, to the darkly intriguing Justinian II, who lost his nose to a usurper before re-capturing his throne - and Norwich does a brilliant job at bringing them all to life. It isn't just the emperors, though, that benefit from his eye for detail, and the author creates memorable character sketches for all the figures that infest his narrative.
Yet while he is assiduous is pencilling-in the little details, Norwich never fails to miss the broader strokes of history; however, it must be said that scholarship has moved on somewhat since his day, and in the three decades since it was published some of what he writes had been shown up as untrue, notably on the development of the Byzantine 'theme' system.
Nevertheless, Norwich knows how to spin a yarn - and there's no reason not to enjoy this book.
May 2, 2019
Just finished the first in the Byzantium trilogy. So far, so good, but not nearly as good as reading the History of Venice. Also, it seems that Norwich relies a lot on quoting Gibbon in this volume. I hope parts two and three are more independent from Gibbon. Final thoughts... This story ends with the 8th century Iconoclasm controversy. Norwich focuses on the politics, which is fine, but inadequately describes the religion (also earlier when covering monophysitism and monotheletism).
Actually, if I could complain about one more thing, there are lots of bands and groups of people mentioned without any short description of from where and what kind of peoples they were. The Isaurians I presume are an important group of people, but I had to look them up. I think he could have thrown a quick sentence in or a note.
Otherwise, I enjoyed reading!
Actually, if I could complain about one more thing, there are lots of bands and groups of people mentioned without any short description of from where and what kind of peoples they were. The Isaurians I presume are an important group of people, but I had to look them up. I think he could have thrown a quick sentence in or a note.
Otherwise, I enjoyed reading!
January 5, 2022
Another great book from Norwich.
I got to say, Norwich is one of my favorite writers. Whenever i get into a topic that i'm interested in, i check if he has written anything on the subject. I loved his book on Venice, i loved his book on the four Princes, i loved his books on the Normans (which i haven't finished yet), and now i loved his book on Byzantium.
The story isn't super in depth, after all we get about a page per year, but Norwich has a great feeling, at least for me, how to make the story flow in a way that you feel you learnt enough about the subject, but also had fun reading it.
This isn't a high level academic book, and the author never tries to present it as such, but it is 100% based on historical records, and a great read despite the few shortcomings it may have. Definitely leaves the reader wanting for more
I got to say, Norwich is one of my favorite writers. Whenever i get into a topic that i'm interested in, i check if he has written anything on the subject. I loved his book on Venice, i loved his book on the four Princes, i loved his books on the Normans (which i haven't finished yet), and now i loved his book on Byzantium.
The story isn't super in depth, after all we get about a page per year, but Norwich has a great feeling, at least for me, how to make the story flow in a way that you feel you learnt enough about the subject, but also had fun reading it.
This isn't a high level academic book, and the author never tries to present it as such, but it is 100% based on historical records, and a great read despite the few shortcomings it may have. Definitely leaves the reader wanting for more
May 23, 2020
A highly accessible account of the politics and history of Byzantine Empire from Constantine’s founding of Constantinople in 330 C.E. to the coronation of Charlemagne as Emperor in the West in 800 C.E. I really enjoyed Norwich’s writing style, clear and concise explanations, and structure of the book. I am looking forward to reading the rest of the series.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 141 reviews