What do you think?
Rate this book
A History of Byzantium #3
Byzantium: The Decline and Fall
From the accession of Alexius in 1081, through the disastrous Fourth Crusade - when an army destined for the Holy Land was diverted to Constantinople by the blind, octogenarian but infinitely crafty Doge of Venice - to the painfully protracted struggle against the Ottomans, the closing centuries of the Byzantine era are rich in pathos, colour and startling reversals of fortune. The terrible siege of Constantinople in 1453 ended the empire, founded in the year 330, which Lord Norwich has devoted many years to re-creating; this volume forms the climax to an epic sequence of books.
488 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1995
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 57 reviews
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 шлифова и ��нституционализира. 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 светска. Византия удържа приливните вълни на нововъзникналия 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 суверенитет - от Венецианския (и генуезкия) 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 разкъсана 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.
Самите 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 възприятие, 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 привидн��. 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 във 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. от н.е., когато започва този конкретен отрязък. Така че се иска четене с разбиране и мислене. Но най-вече четене.
November 2, 2023
An empire bounded by the walls of a sole city
By 1425, Byzantium had transformed into effectively a city state. In the concluding volume of this series, John Julius Norwich unravels the events that paved the way for the ultimate downfall of Constantinople.
Norwich adopts a chronological approach, presenting a mini-biography of each successive emperor. With each ruler's reign, the empire's territory diminishes, reminiscent of a juggler struggling to keep multiple balls in the air – one caught, another dropped.
The crusades are given its due attention, the wars between Venice and Genua are all told from Byzantine perspective.
I haven't read the previous two titles, but that was no issue. This book, and I suspect the other two volums as well, stands on its own merit. Norwich's style is engaging and clear - athough he limits himself only to the emperors and assumes from the reader some basic knowledge of Byzantine politics and society. But for me, lacking both, this was no problem.
By 1425, Byzantium had transformed into effectively a city state. In the concluding volume of this series, John Julius Norwich unravels the events that paved the way for the ultimate downfall of Constantinople.
Norwich adopts a chronological approach, presenting a mini-biography of each successive emperor. With each ruler's reign, the empire's territory diminishes, reminiscent of a juggler struggling to keep multiple balls in the air – one caught, another dropped.
The crusades are given its due attention, the wars between Venice and Genua are all told from Byzantine perspective.
I haven't read the previous two titles, but that was no issue. This book, and I suspect the other two volums as well, stands on its own merit. Norwich's style is engaging and clear - athough he limits himself only to the emperors and assumes from the reader some basic knowledge of Byzantine politics and society. But for me, lacking both, this was no problem.
October 12, 2016
The third and final volume of Norwich's trilogy on the Byzantine civilization carries the empire through the Crusades, the rise of the Ottoman threat, and the disintegration - through internal miscalculation and external apathy - of the culture that kept Greek and Roman influence alive throughout the Dark Ages.
Standing as a bulwark against the ravaging hordes of the East, she provided safe passage for resentful religious armies intent on "liberating" Jerusalem, came frequently to the negotiating table in an attempt to heal her rift with the Latin papacy, and succumbed to the role of your basic marketing hockey puck through centuries of ruthless full-body checks between the shipping magnates of Venice and Genoa.
These are the sad years, rife with ineffectual leadership and short-term solutions, sacrifice and loss. Norwich catalogues it all, and honors this titanic kingdom in full as it fades forever from view.
Standing as a bulwark against the ravaging hordes of the East, she provided safe passage for resentful religious armies intent on "liberating" Jerusalem, came frequently to the negotiating table in an attempt to heal her rift with the Latin papacy, and succumbed to the role of your basic marketing hockey puck through centuries of ruthless full-body checks between the shipping magnates of Venice and Genoa.
These are the sad years, rife with ineffectual leadership and short-term solutions, sacrifice and loss. Norwich catalogues it all, and honors this titanic kingdom in full as it fades forever from view.
June 17, 2016
Sometimes history reads like a tragedy, and the story of the final centuries of the Byzantine Empire is one of those times. Yet there is a certain beauty in tragedy, and that’s present too, perhaps best exemplified when Emperor Constantine XI removes his imperial regalia and charges into a hoard of enemy Turks as the city of Constantinople falls, the emperor never to be found and the city never to be redeemed.
John Julius Norwich does his own sum-up best: “The Roman Empire of the East was founded by Constantine the Great on Monday, 11 May 330; it came to an end on Tuesday, 29 May 1453. . . . Byzantium may not have lived up to its highest ideals—what does?—but it certainly did not deserve the reputation which, thanks largely to Edward Gibbon, it acquired in the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century in England: that of an Empire constituting, ‘without a single exception, the most thoroughly base and despicable form that civilization has yet assumed.’ So grotesque view ignores the fact that the Byzantines were a deeply religious society in which illiteracy—at least among the middle and upper classes—was virtually unknown, and in which one Emperor after another was renowned for his scholarship. . . . It ignores, too, the immeasurable cultural debt that the Western world owes to a civilization which alone preserved much of the heritage of Greek and Latin antiquity, during these dark centuries when the lights of learning in the West were almost extinguished. . . . Robert Byron maintained that the greatness of Byzantium lay in what he described as ‘the Triple Fusion:’ that of a Roman body, a Greek mind, and an oriental, mystical soul.”
I enjoyed Norwich’s writing style and appreciated his distinction between facts, suppositions, theories, and legends. Well worth reading for anyone who enjoys history.
John Julius Norwich does his own sum-up best: “The Roman Empire of the East was founded by Constantine the Great on Monday, 11 May 330; it came to an end on Tuesday, 29 May 1453. . . . Byzantium may not have lived up to its highest ideals—what does?—but it certainly did not deserve the reputation which, thanks largely to Edward Gibbon, it acquired in the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century in England: that of an Empire constituting, ‘without a single exception, the most thoroughly base and despicable form that civilization has yet assumed.’ So grotesque view ignores the fact that the Byzantines were a deeply religious society in which illiteracy—at least among the middle and upper classes—was virtually unknown, and in which one Emperor after another was renowned for his scholarship. . . . It ignores, too, the immeasurable cultural debt that the Western world owes to a civilization which alone preserved much of the heritage of Greek and Latin antiquity, during these dark centuries when the lights of learning in the West were almost extinguished. . . . Robert Byron maintained that the greatness of Byzantium lay in what he described as ‘the Triple Fusion:’ that of a Roman body, a Greek mind, and an oriental, mystical soul.”
I enjoyed Norwich’s writing style and appreciated his distinction between facts, suppositions, theories, and legends. Well worth reading for anyone who enjoys history.
December 9, 2012
This, the final volume of a three book series, brings to end a rivetting and excellent history of the Byzantium Empire. I cannot add anything to the other reviews and comments on this series other than to say if your enjoy reading about history you should love these accounts of this Empire and its times. I found my first volume in a second hand bookshop without knowing anything about its author or the subject matter. It was a great read and I could not wait to buy the following two volumes. I only wish I had read these books before I visited Istanbul in 1990. I loved them, they are excellent histories, the author does a great job in bringing the characters and times to live. Read the series and lose yourself in the history. Great books!
September 18, 2023
John Julius Norwich was a great writer of lively and sparkling prose and a historian of varied quality. His best books were his earliest ones about the Normans in Sicily (rather like Stephen Runnciman who wrote about some of the eras and personalities as Norwich but who was a stronger historian) and his volumes on the history of Venice. It was probably Venice lead him to Byzantium and he wrote his first, rather good, volume on the history of Byzantium in 1988. His subsequent volumes, including this one did not appear until 1993 and 1995 and it is clear, particularly in this one, that he had lost the enthusiasm or at least the stamina for the task of writing such a long history.
I can't argue against the readability and charm of this volume but even in 1995 it was light on scholarship. As an amateur historian Norwich was an exemplar of a now extinct breed. Rich in knowledge of classical authors and medieval chroniclers (and rich in the funds which allowed him to do nothing but be an amateur historian) but light on knowledge derived from archaeology and other sciences. His books are a joy to read but are poor history. I could not recommend this book or any of his Byzantium books as reliable reading.
I can't argue against the readability and charm of this volume but even in 1995 it was light on scholarship. As an amateur historian Norwich was an exemplar of a now extinct breed. Rich in knowledge of classical authors and medieval chroniclers (and rich in the funds which allowed him to do nothing but be an amateur historian) but light on knowledge derived from archaeology and other sciences. His books are a joy to read but are poor history. I could not recommend this book or any of his Byzantium books as reliable reading.
December 6, 2021
The final volume in Norwich's history of Byzantium is a satisfying but perhaps too brief look at the last centuries and the fall of this once great empire.
The book starts with the brilliant reign of Alexios Komnenos, followed by the many crusades, the gradual disintegration of the empire, the turkish onslaught and ends with the last of the Palaiologian emperors. There are about 400 years of history in just as many pages.
The ending feels a bit too rushed and would have liked to get more information about the fall of the last Byzantine remnants in Morea and Trebizond. Instead, after the fall of Constantinople the author just mentions the brief dates that these places were conquered and not much else. The enclave of Theodoro in Crimea is not even mentioned even though it was only conquered in 1475 by the Ottomans making it the last outpost of the empire to fall.
All in all this three book series has been a satisfying summary of the Byzantine Empire. Norwish is a fantastic and engaging storyteller and he manages to pack hundreds of years of history, events and characters into a streamlined story.
The book starts with the brilliant reign of Alexios Komnenos, followed by the many crusades, the gradual disintegration of the empire, the turkish onslaught and ends with the last of the Palaiologian emperors. There are about 400 years of history in just as many pages.
The ending feels a bit too rushed and would have liked to get more information about the fall of the last Byzantine remnants in Morea and Trebizond. Instead, after the fall of Constantinople the author just mentions the brief dates that these places were conquered and not much else. The enclave of Theodoro in Crimea is not even mentioned even though it was only conquered in 1475 by the Ottomans making it the last outpost of the empire to fall.
All in all this three book series has been a satisfying summary of the Byzantine Empire. Norwish is a fantastic and engaging storyteller and he manages to pack hundreds of years of history, events and characters into a streamlined story.
September 1, 2015
This is the final volume of a fabulous series on Byzantium. I read them many years ago when they were first published, and I still remember how eagerly I awaited each volume. The names and number of characters are mind-boggling, but Norwich does such an outstanding job with their presentation that the reader just wants more.
March 30, 2013
A Game of Thrones has absolutely nothing on the true story of the Byzantine Empire. Except for dragons, this last volume of Sir Norwich’s brilliant trilogy on the history of Constantinople has it all: mad kings and sultans, barbarian hordes, epic battles raging across continents, shifting alliances, diplomatic double crosses, lots of action between the sheets and a Hollywood ending full of death and glory.
A touch of sadness tinges this final volume as the Byzantines are betrayed by their fellow Christians, pillaged by Crusaders passing through to the Holy Land, besieged by the ever strengthening Ottomans, and let down by their leadership at every crucial turn. Nevertheless, it is a hell of a ride watching the only Christian theocracy ever (the Papal States don’t count to me) slug it out against all odds for the final 250 years of its existence.
This is the way history should be told, with plenty of facts, but never a dull moment. Highly recommended.
A touch of sadness tinges this final volume as the Byzantines are betrayed by their fellow Christians, pillaged by Crusaders passing through to the Holy Land, besieged by the ever strengthening Ottomans, and let down by their leadership at every crucial turn. Nevertheless, it is a hell of a ride watching the only Christian theocracy ever (the Papal States don’t count to me) slug it out against all odds for the final 250 years of its existence.
This is the way history should be told, with plenty of facts, but never a dull moment. Highly recommended.
July 24, 2020
Today (24th of July, 2020) sees the return of Hagi Sofia in Istanbul to its use as a mosque. The present building was rebuilt by Justinian 1st (known as The Great) in the sixth century AD. The site served as the city's cathedral for over a thousand years before Constantinople (as it was then known) was captured by Sultan Mehmet The Conqueror. The Turkish sultan had the seat of Orthodox Christianity converted into a mosque, with the erection of minarets at each of its four corners. The interior walls, which were covered in mosaics depicting scenes from the bible and the devotions of Byzantine emperors, were plastered over, as Islam has taboos against the depiction of human and animal forms. In 1935, president Kemal Ataturk of the newly independent (and secular) Turkish state, had the building decommissioned as a mosque and handed over to the department of antiquities. What was left of the mosaics was re-exposed and the building re-opened as a museum to both its Christian and Moslem heritage. In this context, the set up of the interior reflected the building's use both as a mosque and Cathedral, so visitors were able to appreciate 17 centuries of religious devotion.
In November 1992, having newly arrived in the city, I tagged on to a group of tourists on a tour inside. I was struck by the sheer height and breadth of the building, and the fact I was wandering up & down staircases, in & out of side chambers, that had been constructed from huge slabs of stone by ancient Greeks. At the exit to the building, the guide stopped his listeners and put one hand on the wall at about shoulder height. He asked them to imagine the scene in 1453, when the old Byzantine capital was overrun by Turkish soldiers. He said, on the day the city fell, the conquerors were doing the traditional sacking of the city. Hagia Sophia was being used as a dumping place for the bodies of the slaughtered. It's unknown how many soldiers, civilians, women & children were killed. But the Sultan – “the Padishah” - came in to inspect the building. Tradition has it that he put his hand, which was covered in blood, on the wall, marking how high the corpses should be stacked before a halt would be called to the killing. It's an apocryphal tale which I haven't heard repeated again in twenty eight years of living in Turkey, but it has the ring of truth to it. In Julian of Norwich's third and final volume of “Byzantium”, subtitled “Decline and Fall”, the good lord tells us Mehmet called a halt to the slaughter after only one day, when according to Islamic practice, the normal length for sacking a city was three. But if you think that Mehmet - at just twenty-one years of age – was a merciful soul, please read this book.
I suppose the subtitle “Decline and Fall” is supposed to echo Gibbon's six volume history of the Roman Empire. At one point, the Romans even take centre stage in this account, as for more than half a century the Byzantine emperors were exiled from their own capital, and Constantinople was ruled by so-called Latins. But the whole decline is spread over four centuries: from the disastrous battle of Malazgirt (here called Manzikert) to the final capture of the imperial city by Mehmet the Conqueror. The rise and fall of the British Empire, if it's worth making comparisons, took less than half that time. If we measure the whole length of the Byzantine empire - from its foundation by Constantine the first, to its annihilation under Constantine Palaeologus - it's roughly seven times as long as it took India to gain independence from British rule.
As I've said in my reviews of previous volumes, the number of emperors here, several of whom barely qualify for two or three pages each, is daunting. Added to which is the difficulty of pronouncing some of their names. Comnenus, of whom there were no less than five, is a serious tongue-twister. Then there's Palaeologus – all nine of them (excluding non-emperors with the same name). Cantacuzenus, mercifully, makes only one appearance on the list (as John VI), but his career is spread over more than fifty pages.
Some do stand out. Alexius I Comnenus, who turned the Manzikert disaster around. Manzikert (1071) is rather like Hastings (1066) except that it marks - as Churchill might have said - the beginning of the end. Then there are the Anglo-Saxon warriors who escaped England after Hastings and who headed south to join the emperor's Varangian bodyguard. Alexius, who begins the process of paying off the empire's enemies, could be the corollary of William the Conqueror of England. But it's vain of me to try and draw comparisons between Byzantium and just about any other empire. Who or what could compare with the reign of John III Ducas Vatatzes, who spent thirty-three years ruling the empire in exile, but who died within a year of retaking the capital? At times the story reads more fantastical than some Star Wars saga. Somewhere along there are multiple emperors with names such as Manuel, Isaac, Theodore and Andronicus. How on earth students - or contestants on Mastermind – could consign half, or even a third, or these folk to memory boggles my mind.
The Fall itself should not go without some mention. I wouldn't want to spoil it for anyone, though. Suffice to say, it does get somewhat emotional. There seem to be less of the blindings and defacings within the Byzantine camp, but there are some pretty gruesome accounts of impalement and beheadings as the net closes in. There's heroism and cowardliness, cruelty and compassion on both sides. The involvement of the Venetians and Genoese was an eye-opener for me, I knew they were around, but the extent the Empire was reliant on and subject to their colonisation was far greater than I could have imagined. The diaspora after the Fall is perhaps not so surprising, but definitely touching. The region has seen wave after wave of refugees going back five millennia and more.
I would feel a sense of loss coming to the end of this third and final volume. But... there's another I have yet to read. Norwich, I think realising he has covered too much ground to make cogent sense of it all, has written a single volume, condensed version. I have the book and sometime soon I shall dip again into the mysterious world of the Byzantines. They did, after all, keep Western civilisation going for centuries during what we call The Dark Ages. Even though the Greeks of medieval Athens considered them somewhat strange and foreign, they have inspired poets like Yeats. One day, I'm pretty sure Netflix will descend on this ready-made saga, which makes Game of Thrones look rather pedestrian and tame.
In November 1992, having newly arrived in the city, I tagged on to a group of tourists on a tour inside. I was struck by the sheer height and breadth of the building, and the fact I was wandering up & down staircases, in & out of side chambers, that had been constructed from huge slabs of stone by ancient Greeks. At the exit to the building, the guide stopped his listeners and put one hand on the wall at about shoulder height. He asked them to imagine the scene in 1453, when the old Byzantine capital was overrun by Turkish soldiers. He said, on the day the city fell, the conquerors were doing the traditional sacking of the city. Hagia Sophia was being used as a dumping place for the bodies of the slaughtered. It's unknown how many soldiers, civilians, women & children were killed. But the Sultan – “the Padishah” - came in to inspect the building. Tradition has it that he put his hand, which was covered in blood, on the wall, marking how high the corpses should be stacked before a halt would be called to the killing. It's an apocryphal tale which I haven't heard repeated again in twenty eight years of living in Turkey, but it has the ring of truth to it. In Julian of Norwich's third and final volume of “Byzantium”, subtitled “Decline and Fall”, the good lord tells us Mehmet called a halt to the slaughter after only one day, when according to Islamic practice, the normal length for sacking a city was three. But if you think that Mehmet - at just twenty-one years of age – was a merciful soul, please read this book.
I suppose the subtitle “Decline and Fall” is supposed to echo Gibbon's six volume history of the Roman Empire. At one point, the Romans even take centre stage in this account, as for more than half a century the Byzantine emperors were exiled from their own capital, and Constantinople was ruled by so-called Latins. But the whole decline is spread over four centuries: from the disastrous battle of Malazgirt (here called Manzikert) to the final capture of the imperial city by Mehmet the Conqueror. The rise and fall of the British Empire, if it's worth making comparisons, took less than half that time. If we measure the whole length of the Byzantine empire - from its foundation by Constantine the first, to its annihilation under Constantine Palaeologus - it's roughly seven times as long as it took India to gain independence from British rule.
As I've said in my reviews of previous volumes, the number of emperors here, several of whom barely qualify for two or three pages each, is daunting. Added to which is the difficulty of pronouncing some of their names. Comnenus, of whom there were no less than five, is a serious tongue-twister. Then there's Palaeologus – all nine of them (excluding non-emperors with the same name). Cantacuzenus, mercifully, makes only one appearance on the list (as John VI), but his career is spread over more than fifty pages.
Some do stand out. Alexius I Comnenus, who turned the Manzikert disaster around. Manzikert (1071) is rather like Hastings (1066) except that it marks - as Churchill might have said - the beginning of the end. Then there are the Anglo-Saxon warriors who escaped England after Hastings and who headed south to join the emperor's Varangian bodyguard. Alexius, who begins the process of paying off the empire's enemies, could be the corollary of William the Conqueror of England. But it's vain of me to try and draw comparisons between Byzantium and just about any other empire. Who or what could compare with the reign of John III Ducas Vatatzes, who spent thirty-three years ruling the empire in exile, but who died within a year of retaking the capital? At times the story reads more fantastical than some Star Wars saga. Somewhere along there are multiple emperors with names such as Manuel, Isaac, Theodore and Andronicus. How on earth students - or contestants on Mastermind – could consign half, or even a third, or these folk to memory boggles my mind.
The Fall itself should not go without some mention. I wouldn't want to spoil it for anyone, though. Suffice to say, it does get somewhat emotional. There seem to be less of the blindings and defacings within the Byzantine camp, but there are some pretty gruesome accounts of impalement and beheadings as the net closes in. There's heroism and cowardliness, cruelty and compassion on both sides. The involvement of the Venetians and Genoese was an eye-opener for me, I knew they were around, but the extent the Empire was reliant on and subject to their colonisation was far greater than I could have imagined. The diaspora after the Fall is perhaps not so surprising, but definitely touching. The region has seen wave after wave of refugees going back five millennia and more.
I would feel a sense of loss coming to the end of this third and final volume. But... there's another I have yet to read. Norwich, I think realising he has covered too much ground to make cogent sense of it all, has written a single volume, condensed version. I have the book and sometime soon I shall dip again into the mysterious world of the Byzantines. They did, after all, keep Western civilisation going for centuries during what we call The Dark Ages. Even though the Greeks of medieval Athens considered them somewhat strange and foreign, they have inspired poets like Yeats. One day, I'm pretty sure Netflix will descend on this ready-made saga, which makes Game of Thrones look rather pedestrian and tame.
August 17, 2023
It’s hard coming to the end of this magnificent trilogy. Norwich has written quite a masterpiece of history—this final part being no exception. The last forty pages were the culmination of 11 centuries. I was struck by how awing it must have been to be one of those defenders the night before the fall of Constantinople; the despair was tangible through Norwich’s prose.
It’s strange to see something you have been illogically rooting for, since the first book, be brought so low an innumerable amount of times. Each part of this trilogy has its own villains—the Popes, the Emperors themselves and their wives, or the barbarians to the north and west— but this one had proven the true enemy to be the ITALIANS. God, I will never forgive the Venetians and Genoese their intriguing and perfidy for what they did to my precious Byzantium. I don’t know why I now have a para-social relationship with this now forgotten civilization but I do.
“That is why five and a half centuries later…it is the Land Walls—broken, battered, but still marching from sea to sea—that stand as the city’s grandest and most tragic monument.”
It’s strange to see something you have been illogically rooting for, since the first book, be brought so low an innumerable amount of times. Each part of this trilogy has its own villains—the Popes, the Emperors themselves and their wives, or the barbarians to the north and west— but this one had proven the true enemy to be the ITALIANS. God, I will never forgive the Venetians and Genoese their intriguing and perfidy for what they did to my precious Byzantium. I don’t know why I now have a para-social relationship with this now forgotten civilization but I do.
“That is why five and a half centuries later…it is the Land Walls—broken, battered, but still marching from sea to sea—that stand as the city’s grandest and most tragic monument.”
January 23, 2021
Please see my review of Byzantium: The Early Centuries, which covers this volume as well.
Having read all three volumes of Byzantium by Norwich, I 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 very soon. The history of Byzantium links for the modern student of history the ancient age with the beginning of the modern.
15 likes
Having read all three volumes of Byzantium by Norwich, I 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 very soon. The history of Byzantium links for the modern student of history the ancient age with the beginning of the modern.
15 likes
September 3, 2012
I love John Julius Norwich's writing and his grasp of history. I'll spare you all ten different reviews. This is narrative history without jargon and without poor writing. It has an air of authority that, in a lesser historian, might be covering a lack of knowledge. I don't seem to get that impression here, and, as I am pretty widely read on Byzantium, I feel qualified to say that Norwich consistently tells the story accurately and well.
October 12, 2010
The conclusion of the masterful retelling of the history of Byzantium. The story of the final decline is depressing, but enlivened by Norwich's masterful prose and the heroism of Constantine XI.
October 21, 2020
The climax of this trilogy benefits from having more and better historical sources. Norwich is thus able to look more deeply into the emperors from 1081 to 1453. We learn of their personalities, policies and events in ways that have little resemblance to the kaleidoscope of the previous book. A few are great, more are admirable; some do nothing but cause trouble, and some are pathetic. The thing is, we can relate to them.
November 11, 2022
Again wonderful work on Byzantine tragedy, series of tragical times for whole Christendom.
Frankokratia and Latinokratia derive from the name given by the Orthodox Greeks to the Western French and Italians who originated from territories that once belonged to the Frankish Empire.
So Greek brotherhood, kinship is well placed in Rome, Macedonia(Slavic) and France. (Apart from that there was large migration of Greeks to Poland itself, indeed, in XX c. )
Also about crusades,and event that caused them all, Crusade of the Paupers, peoples crusade, Rhineland massacres, also known as the German Crusade - series of mass murders of Jews perpetrated by mobs of German Christians
About Emir nur Ed-Din whos victory at battlein of Inab was motive for secend crusade. And victory of Zangid dynasty, that was a Muslim dynasty of Oghuz Turkic origin, which ruled parts of the Levant and Upper Mesopotamia on behalf of the Seljuk Empire.
About Council of Clermont, an assembly for church reform called by Pope Urban IIon November 18, 1095, which became the occasion for initiating the First Crusade. The Council was attended largely by bishops of southern France as well as a few representatives from northern France and elsewhere. - And deus volult cry.
About attack in 1156 on Cyprus Raynald of Châtillon and Thoros II, Prince of Armenia. Garrison defended bravely by distinguished general Michael Branas.
About The Treaty or Peace of Venice, 1177, was a peace treaty between the papacy and its allies, the north Italian city-states of the Lombard League, and Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor. - And yes Venice back then was Power No1, before Mediterranean sea became just sea, and oceans took its place in trade.
About
Germany that was torn apart by civil war over the succession and England and France has been similar.
---
So in England Norman Conquest, after the Battle of Hastings (October 14, 1066) resulting ultimately in profound political, administrative, and social changes in the British Isles.
Was prelude to yet another threat, in spite of Battle of Gisors that was victorus of English, Richard the Lionheart,was shot in the shoulder with an crossbow bolt, at siege of Châlus-Chabro. The wound turned gangrenous, and he died on 6 April 1199.
And so Treaty of Le Goulet was proclamied for over the Duchy of Normandy and finalising the new borders of what was left of the duchy.
The English sovereigns continued to claim them until the Treaty of Paris (1259) but in fact kept only the Channel Islands.
And finally about Battle of the Maritsa River that was disaster not only for Serbs, but for Byzantine and truly whole of Christendom. No longer was there any barrier for invaders to invade Serbia, Macedonia and Greece. Surviving nobility of Serbia became vassals of Turkish overlords, bound to recognize suzerainty of the ottoman sultans.
So Hundred Years' Croatian–Ottoman War ended with startup of The Long Turkish War or Thirteen Years' War , Peace of Zsitvatorok ended Long Turkish and Fifteen Years' War between the Ottoman Empire and the Habsburg Monarchy .
---
And this
The Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II, who had conquered Constantinople in 1453, died in 1481, and his two sons Cem and Bayezid fought a civil war over who would succeed him.
Desperate for money, Andreas sold his rights to the Byzantine crown in 1494 to Charles VIII of France, who attempted to organize a crusade against the Ottomans. The sale was conditional on Charles, who Andreas hoped to use as a champion against the Ottomans, conquering the Morea and granting it to Andreas.
Andreas Palaiologos sold all his titles to Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain.
Enjoyed the all although it was a lot of reading, and now I'm begging for polish literature.
Frankokratia and Latinokratia derive from the name given by the Orthodox Greeks to the Western French and Italians who originated from territories that once belonged to the Frankish Empire.
So Greek brotherhood, kinship is well placed in Rome, Macedonia(Slavic) and France. (Apart from that there was large migration of Greeks to Poland itself, indeed, in XX c. )
Also about crusades,and event that caused them all, Crusade of the Paupers, peoples crusade, Rhineland massacres, also known as the German Crusade - series of mass murders of Jews perpetrated by mobs of German Christians
About Emir nur Ed-Din whos victory at battlein of Inab was motive for secend crusade. And victory of Zangid dynasty, that was a Muslim dynasty of Oghuz Turkic origin, which ruled parts of the Levant and Upper Mesopotamia on behalf of the Seljuk Empire.
About Council of Clermont, an assembly for church reform called by Pope Urban IIon November 18, 1095, which became the occasion for initiating the First Crusade. The Council was attended largely by bishops of southern France as well as a few representatives from northern France and elsewhere. - And deus volult cry.
About attack in 1156 on Cyprus Raynald of Châtillon and Thoros II, Prince of Armenia. Garrison defended bravely by distinguished general Michael Branas.
About The Treaty or Peace of Venice, 1177, was a peace treaty between the papacy and its allies, the north Italian city-states of the Lombard League, and Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor. - And yes Venice back then was Power No1, before Mediterranean sea became just sea, and oceans took its place in trade.
About
Germany that was torn apart by civil war over the succession and England and France has been similar.
---
So in England Norman Conquest, after the Battle of Hastings (October 14, 1066) resulting ultimately in profound political, administrative, and social changes in the British Isles.
Was prelude to yet another threat, in spite of Battle of Gisors that was victorus of English, Richard the Lionheart,was shot in the shoulder with an crossbow bolt, at siege of Châlus-Chabro. The wound turned gangrenous, and he died on 6 April 1199.
And so Treaty of Le Goulet was proclamied for over the Duchy of Normandy and finalising the new borders of what was left of the duchy.
The English sovereigns continued to claim them until the Treaty of Paris (1259) but in fact kept only the Channel Islands.
And finally about Battle of the Maritsa River that was disaster not only for Serbs, but for Byzantine and truly whole of Christendom. No longer was there any barrier for invaders to invade Serbia, Macedonia and Greece. Surviving nobility of Serbia became vassals of Turkish overlords, bound to recognize suzerainty of the ottoman sultans.
So Hundred Years' Croatian–Ottoman War ended with startup of The Long Turkish War or Thirteen Years' War , Peace of Zsitvatorok ended Long Turkish and Fifteen Years' War between the Ottoman Empire and the Habsburg Monarchy .
---
And this
The Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II, who had conquered Constantinople in 1453, died in 1481, and his two sons Cem and Bayezid fought a civil war over who would succeed him.
Desperate for money, Andreas sold his rights to the Byzantine crown in 1494 to Charles VIII of France, who attempted to organize a crusade against the Ottomans. The sale was conditional on Charles, who Andreas hoped to use as a champion against the Ottomans, conquering the Morea and granting it to Andreas.
Andreas Palaiologos sold all his titles to Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain.
Enjoyed the all although it was a lot of reading, and now I'm begging for polish literature.
August 27, 2014
At 3:09am last night I finished my epic journey through Norwich's three books about Byzantium. I'm glad I did; history fans need to read these books as they are masterpieces. True, Norwich emphasizes the Empire's political history, but there is plenty of depth when taken as a whole. The plot twists and cast of characters are as colorful and lively as in any bestselling novel, and Norwich has wonderful prose. Any professional or amateur historian needs to read this series!
Some of my favorite parts (spoiler alert):
5) All of the entertaining yet failed diplomatic attempts to reunite the Catholic Church with the Eastern Orthodox Church. Towards the end, three Emperors went as far as "reuniting" with the Church out of a plea for help, but the Byzantine people wouldn't have it, and the help never came in earnest.
4)The Fourth Crusade. A debacle if there ever was one, this "Crusade" eventually saw Constantinople sacked by the Crusaders in 1204, and the city would never recover. The main culprit was the eighty-something Doge of Venice Enrico Dandolo, who was also blind as a bat. A sad and pathetic tale!
3) How Tamburlaine's surprising beating on the Ottomans gave the Byzantines a desperately needed second wind. To top it off, captured Ottoman Sultan Bayezit is paraded around in an iron cage, occasionally used as a footstool, and his wife is forced to serve Tamburlaine's table while in the nude.
2) The First Crusade. Originally just wanting mercenaries to help regain Byzantine lands, talented Emperor Alexius Comnenus is shocked beyond belief by the People's Crusade, the sinful behavior of the Crusaders, and the shady Crusader leaders who want to conquer former Byzantine lands for themselves. A fascinating and necessary point of view in order to better understand the First Crusade.
1) The fall of Constantinople in 1453. Sultan Mehmet II, aged 21 and hellbent on annihilating the Empire once and for all, leads a 48 day siege with the biggest cannon ever built (27 feet long, 2.5 feet diameter, 8 inches thick of bronze!). When the attack finally begins, the pillaging is so extreme that Mehmet cuts the normal 3 day sacking to one day only. The last emperor, Constantine XI, dies in the middle of the melee. What a finish!
All in all, 5/5 stars, but to nit pick I'd have liked to have read more about Russia's later role in the Orthodox Church, how the Turks handled the city after Mehmet's conquest, a final chapter to summarize the Byzantines in general, and also more photographs would have been nice to keep track of all of the characters. A great book and series!
Some of my favorite parts (spoiler alert):
5) All of the entertaining yet failed diplomatic attempts to reunite the Catholic Church with the Eastern Orthodox Church. Towards the end, three Emperors went as far as "reuniting" with the Church out of a plea for help, but the Byzantine people wouldn't have it, and the help never came in earnest.
4)The Fourth Crusade. A debacle if there ever was one, this "Crusade" eventually saw Constantinople sacked by the Crusaders in 1204, and the city would never recover. The main culprit was the eighty-something Doge of Venice Enrico Dandolo, who was also blind as a bat. A sad and pathetic tale!
3) How Tamburlaine's surprising beating on the Ottomans gave the Byzantines a desperately needed second wind. To top it off, captured Ottoman Sultan Bayezit is paraded around in an iron cage, occasionally used as a footstool, and his wife is forced to serve Tamburlaine's table while in the nude.
2) The First Crusade. Originally just wanting mercenaries to help regain Byzantine lands, talented Emperor Alexius Comnenus is shocked beyond belief by the People's Crusade, the sinful behavior of the Crusaders, and the shady Crusader leaders who want to conquer former Byzantine lands for themselves. A fascinating and necessary point of view in order to better understand the First Crusade.
1) The fall of Constantinople in 1453. Sultan Mehmet II, aged 21 and hellbent on annihilating the Empire once and for all, leads a 48 day siege with the biggest cannon ever built (27 feet long, 2.5 feet diameter, 8 inches thick of bronze!). When the attack finally begins, the pillaging is so extreme that Mehmet cuts the normal 3 day sacking to one day only. The last emperor, Constantine XI, dies in the middle of the melee. What a finish!
All in all, 5/5 stars, but to nit pick I'd have liked to have read more about Russia's later role in the Orthodox Church, how the Turks handled the city after Mehmet's conquest, a final chapter to summarize the Byzantines in general, and also more photographs would have been nice to keep track of all of the characters. A great book and series!
March 27, 2016
I have a lot of affection for these books. They're narrative histories that cover the Byzantine empire from Diocletian to Constantinople's fall to the Ottomans. Despite their length, there's a lot that's missed out: art (although this is something Norwich is clearly interested in), literature (apart from the odd evaluation of a chronicler/primary source), economics (outside these books, there's a lot of interesting scholarship on land tenure) and intellectual history (although this is well treated in the last volume). This perhaps reflects the diachronic nature of the project and we get a lot of interesting characters and anecdotes instead. This volume is particularly interesting for its description of piratical mercenaries like the Catalan Company (rather like the routiers in Europe at this time), its description of the Crusades from the Byzantine perspective (usually writing on the Crusading Kingdoms focusses on Jerusalem which had less relations with Byzantium than Edessa/Antioch), its description of the powerful Slavic kingdoms of the period (which are rarely found in English historiography), its description of the complex efforts to reconcile Eastern/Western Churches so that the pope could co-ordinate aid for Byzantium and particularly for its description of the Early Ottomans (I did not know they're power was based on Europe from a very early moment in their history and that they were on the point of taking Constantinople for about a century, while also having close relations with the Byzantines involving treaties and marriages). One criticism: the volume is slightly Islamophobic; it acts as if it is a genuine loss that Constantinople fell to Muslims rather than just a regime change. Bayezid I and Mehmet II are depicted in fairly negative terms, I do not know if this reflects a judicious assessment of historiography on them. Still a great end to a series that I have always liked, the description of the colossal efforts to take constantinople are a particular highlight.
April 14, 2012
Great trilogy, magnificient history of Byzantium..
December 25, 2017
Yesterday, December 24 at 11:48 at night, I finished reading the third and last volume of Byzantium. It is a story whose melancholy increases as we flip the pages. In this last volume, the Empire is like a bonfire (or a pyre?) whose refulgence is still intense and bright by the time of the arrival of the first Crusaders, when Alexis I Komnenos was emperor and the empire could still be proudly called Empire. And then, gradually and inexorably, the fire begins to fade, and worse: the flames are not extinguished by itself or by the Islamic powers of Asia but by their Christian brethren of Europe.
By the envy of princelings of Eastern Europe, by the Franks of the Crusades, and to a much larger extent by the commercial empires of Venice and Genoa, for which their main credo was their own economic welfare at the expense of anything that stood on their way. La Serenissima and Genoa lose face in this story. Towards the end, there is a ray of hope when the (until then) invincible Ottoman army is humiliated by Timur and his Mongols, but Constantinople was already weak due to internal fractures, civil war, and low morale.
I want to share the following passage from the book. It is Monday, May 28, 1453. Mehmet II, camped outside the city walls, has ordered his army to dedicate the day to reflection and prayer. The sun is silently setting.
"Dusk was falling. From all over the city, as if by instinct, the people were making their way to the church of the Holy Wisdom [St. Sophia]... St Sophia was, as no other church could ever be, the spiritual centre of Byzantium. For eleven centuries, since the days of the son of Constantine the Great, the cathedral church of the city had stood on that spot; for over nine of those centuries the great gilded cross surmounting Justinian's vast dome had symbolized the faith of city and Empire. In this moment of supreme crisis, there could be nowhere else to go.
That last service of vespers ever to be held in the Great Church was also, surely, the most inspiring. Once again, the defenders on the walls were unable to desert their posts; but virtually every other able-bodied man, woman and child in the city crowded into St Sophia to take the Eucharist and to pray together, under the great golden mosaics that they knew so well, for their deliverance. The Patriarchal Chair was still vacant; but Orthodox bishops and priests, monks and nuns... were present in their hundreds…”
Imagine yourself crossing the threshold of Hagia Sophia as a random tourist visiting Istanbul. You’re wearing blue jeans, white sneakers, and a t-shirt with the Nike logo on it.
Now imagine yourself crossing the threshold after having read the above passage. The distance is unmeasurable, isn’t it?
Now imagine you are entering the church on 28 May 1453.
By the envy of princelings of Eastern Europe, by the Franks of the Crusades, and to a much larger extent by the commercial empires of Venice and Genoa, for which their main credo was their own economic welfare at the expense of anything that stood on their way. La Serenissima and Genoa lose face in this story. Towards the end, there is a ray of hope when the (until then) invincible Ottoman army is humiliated by Timur and his Mongols, but Constantinople was already weak due to internal fractures, civil war, and low morale.
I want to share the following passage from the book. It is Monday, May 28, 1453. Mehmet II, camped outside the city walls, has ordered his army to dedicate the day to reflection and prayer. The sun is silently setting.
"Dusk was falling. From all over the city, as if by instinct, the people were making their way to the church of the Holy Wisdom [St. Sophia]... St Sophia was, as no other church could ever be, the spiritual centre of Byzantium. For eleven centuries, since the days of the son of Constantine the Great, the cathedral church of the city had stood on that spot; for over nine of those centuries the great gilded cross surmounting Justinian's vast dome had symbolized the faith of city and Empire. In this moment of supreme crisis, there could be nowhere else to go.
That last service of vespers ever to be held in the Great Church was also, surely, the most inspiring. Once again, the defenders on the walls were unable to desert their posts; but virtually every other able-bodied man, woman and child in the city crowded into St Sophia to take the Eucharist and to pray together, under the great golden mosaics that they knew so well, for their deliverance. The Patriarchal Chair was still vacant; but Orthodox bishops and priests, monks and nuns... were present in their hundreds…”
Imagine yourself crossing the threshold of Hagia Sophia as a random tourist visiting Istanbul. You’re wearing blue jeans, white sneakers, and a t-shirt with the Nike logo on it.
Now imagine yourself crossing the threshold after having read the above passage. The distance is unmeasurable, isn’t it?
Now imagine you are entering the church on 28 May 1453.
February 16, 2020
After reading the complete set an observation. Why, do humans at any place or time in history continue to ignore the threat that will kill and pursue short term goals? As you read this work Norwich points out again and again European rulers who used Byzantium weakness and picked the carcass of the Empire. Instead of assisting the Byzantines against the Arabs or Turks. A shortsighted policy that led to another 200 years of Ottoman conquest through the Balkans and the continued shrinking of Christian lands in the East. A policy that today we continue to see with European involvement in the Balkans as the West try's to get the people of the Balkans to call a cop instead of the Blood feud. Short term goals of personal wealth and glory that lead to long term destruction, pain, death, and continued heart break. And we don't get any better. Our politicians in the U.S., England, Russia, and China along with innumerable Third World dictators use their people for their own gain. Use their land up instead of being good stewards of it. Pollute the air and water and then ask the people to fix their errors. All this done while they hold on to their political empires and or attack the carcass of what is left. It is obvious to me, that out side of a good, well written, and quick moving history the questions that the history asks are just as important.
November 15, 2022
A tragic ending to the series. The Komnenian Restoration was nice, but it held a tinge of pessimism, a warning of what was to come. The failure for the Byzantines to reconquer Anatolia proved to be fatal, alongside the crusading shenanigans the Western Europeans had gotten up to. Everything past the destructive Fourth Crusade feels hopeless, but it's oddly inspiring. They never gave up, they always tried. Constantine XI's last stand, or how it is reported, was truly honorable, and honestly I was getting a little teary reflecting on it. Wow. Already new the outline of the "story" myself, but it was told very well. I'd say in terms of complaints, some of the explanations of minute details could get a bit dry, a more so than in the previous two books, and also the epilogue of the book wasn't as fleshed out or detailed as I was expecting. But I think overall this is an amazing book. A 9/10 for me.
July 12, 2017
Why do the Greeks hold Tuesday to be unlucky? Why were the Hesychats real navel gazers? Why did the Russian use the double headed eagle in their coat of arms and how did Moscow become known as the third Rome? Why must you never trust a Venetian or a Genoese? Why were the Crusades a ultimately disaster for Christendom? Why were there three Popes ruling at one time? Why was the ugly looking John called beautiful? Why was Andronicus terrible? Which Pope, a former pirate was deposed by a general council after being found guilty of piracy, murder, rape, sodomy and incest (these were not the worst crimes apparently - the most scandalous charges were suppressed)?
Answers to all these questions along with a heartbreaking final chapter describing the final tragic, heroic fall of Constantinople are found in this, the final volume of Norwich's History of Byzantium.
Answers to all these questions along with a heartbreaking final chapter describing the final tragic, heroic fall of Constantinople are found in this, the final volume of Norwich's History of Byzantium.
December 31, 2019
The third volume it this informative series chronicles the tragic decline and ultimate fall of the Eastern Roman Empire. Western Europe, though still in the middle of their own wars of state/kingdom building, certainly seemed complicit in the decline and fall from shear neglect and indifference to the fate of the Orthodox Greeks to outright hostility during the Crusades. Petty arguments over fine and what seems to me pretty irrelevant points of Christian theology in both east and west certainly didn't help. All three volumes well worth a read. I am now going to try Gibbon's History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire who understand was much less sympathetic to Byzantium than Norwich's series.
August 28, 2023
I'm very hard-pressed to decide which one I liked better: the story of Byzantium itself or the way Mr. Norwich told it. I have to confess, this was my second try at the trilogy but I'm positive that I'll read it again and again.
I'm a bit ashamed to admit that up until now I knew next to nothing of Byzantium besides the rudimentary basics, and I cannot tell how many ways this trilogy widened my horizon and deepened my knowledge of the world. Mr. Norwich's books read like very rich and at times almost incredibly complicated but utterly spellbinding mysteries. The final chapters of the final book blew me away. The fall... I was and still am heartbroken. What a story! What a storyteller!
I'm a bit ashamed to admit that up until now I knew next to nothing of Byzantium besides the rudimentary basics, and I cannot tell how many ways this trilogy widened my horizon and deepened my knowledge of the world. Mr. Norwich's books read like very rich and at times almost incredibly complicated but utterly spellbinding mysteries. The final chapters of the final book blew me away. The fall... I was and still am heartbroken. What a story! What a storyteller!
May 26, 2018
Son kitapta haçlı seferleri çok öne çıkıyor. Haçlı seferlerini çok iyi idare eden Komnenos hanedanından sonra, darbeyle taht sahibi Angeloslar imparatorluğun sonunu hazırlıyor. 4.Haçlı seferiyle(gerçekten haçlı seferi denilebilirse) Venedik Doj'u ve Fransızlar Bizans topraklarını bölüşüyor. Sürgün imparatorluklar, Bizansı diriltmeye çalışsa da kendilerine zarar veriyor. İznikten gelen Palaiologos hanedanı Konstantiniyye'yi alıp imparatorluğu yeniden kursa da, dağılmış ordu ve düzen karşısında Türk vasalı olmaktan ileri gidemiyor..
June 7, 2020
The final book in the Byzantium trilogy explores the long decline and destruction of the Byzantine Empire. Norwich beautifully takes the reader through the religious controversies, constant war, and political infighting that culminated in the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople. My favorite quote in the book sums up why the empire crumbled:
Byzantium, devoured from within, threatened from without.
I recommend this book to anyone interested in the crusades, medieval Europe, and of course Byzantine history.
Byzantium, devoured from within, threatened from without.
I recommend this book to anyone interested in the crusades, medieval Europe, and of course Byzantine history.
March 4, 2021
In my opinion the definitive series on byzantine history. The style is engaging for amateur and veteran historians alike. The author did his research well and it shows. The level of detail is pretty solid for a broad general history like this. If someone was asking for a general history or understand of the Byzantium era this is the gold standard to my eyes.
March 17, 2022
John Julius Norwich's work on this trilogy can only be described as magnificent. Although he doesn't go too in detail at some places (which he himself freely admits and encourages the reader to look further into) his work is nonetheless a masterpiece with regards to Byzantium and his final book is a well deserved sendoff to the civilization that has so engrossed his and our minds.
June 30, 2021
See my comments about volume 1
Displaying 1 - 30 of 57 reviews