...
Show More
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.