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.

Starts with the division of the Empire in the 300's and goes from there. Along with The Apogee and The Decline and Fall, makes a great continuation of the history of the Roman Empire given in schools. Without a very good understanding of the 'Byzantine' (actually Roman) Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Hapsburg Empire, and Elizabethan England one does not understand Europe's rise to power.

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.

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.

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.

El verdadero sacrilegio ha sido que los españoles hayamos tenido que esperar cuarenta años para leer esta joya. Me parece increíble cómo el autor es capaz de conjugar erudición y concreción con un estilo tremendamente ameno. En algunos casos se lee casi como si fuera una novela, con sus héroes (Constantino, Justiniano el Grande, Heraclio) y sus villanos (Focas, Justiniano II, Irene). Deseando que caiga en mis manos la segunda parte

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.

Compelling series on the history of Byzantium (but also covering much of the Venice and Genoese republics, Sicily and the various Western and Balkan states), starting with Constantine’s establishment of the Eastern Empire and the end of the Western Empire and going through to the Ottoman sack of Constantinople.

The focus is very much and deliberately political (great men and battles) rather than social (we learn little about normal life) or economical (we know little of why Byzantium was so prosperous at its peak or of the reason for the wealth of Venice).

There is however detailed and in fact very clear description of many of the theological disputes and one of the author’s themes is that these were intimately bound up with Byzantine politics as well as its complex relations with the West).

The other theme is that the Byzantine Empire doesn’t deserve its relative obscurity in modern times and was the continuation of both Greek and Roman culture and civilisation for many years when the West was in the Dark Ages).

The series is well written, even if at times the many of hundreds of years of history and similar names Popes, Patriachs, Emperors and various Balkan princes and Muslim and Barbarian tribes can get complex (the book could do with more than just a list of Emperors at the back e.g. a summary of each or a more detailed timeline as well as with better maps).

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.

Don'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.

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

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.