Took a long time to read this, slow work basically an interesting time and as usual well researched but it all happend far away and long ago so there is little detail to keep it interesting. The book get better as he deals with more modern and better recorded times. A little more non academic common sence aprasal would help.

Back to reading this trilogy (unfortunately don’t have the third part, but I can find other books for that, at least most of it I hope). The story continues on from the coronation of Charlemagne in 1081 to Alexius I Comnenus who seems to bring some hope into a downpoint in Byzantine history (though author does say that the end of Basil II’s reign begins the downward turn. Apogee here means the high point in the empire’s history, and it seems such as I read through many stories of its rulers, mostly men.

At the start are some maps (the capital, the Mediterranean world of Byzantium, Bulgaria c.900, Anatolia and Armenia), and four family trees. At the end are lists of the emperors of East and West relevant to the story, Muslim sultans, patriarchs of the empire, and the Popes. I recommend keeping some sort of bookmark on both ends so you can look at the family trees (even the non-rulers are important here) and the rulers etc.of book’s times.

It was easier for the author to find material for this part of history, since writings become more abundant and reliable, though of course some things are still left to guess. Notes at the end of some pages also give you some interesting details, so one should read them.

For this part of story, the Bulgars and the Russians become important to the story; parts about the lands in Italy get less attention; the situations with the Muslims remain (and the Armenians are also important). Religion-wise, the gap between the churches of East and West keeps on widening and finally becomes permanent separation. Iconoclasm gets a second wave, but less strongly so, and is quicker finished. The patriarchs, like the emperors, vary in their strenghts and weaknesses, meddling and helpless, blocking certain things, and messing some others when everything was going fine. So sometimes a death of a partriarch is really a relief for everyone else.

Once again, emperors are never too boring to read about. Families come and go. Some come from humble roots, some are nobility. Their looks vary, states of health vary, tempers vary, abilities to rule vary, virtues and vices vary. Lenghts of their reigns vary. And of course, their endings vary. Betrayals, exiles, punishments like blindings, assasinations, into monasteries and back (sometimes several times).
Each one’s rule can help or hinder the empire’s powers. Marriages and having or not having chidren or close-enough relatives can influence who will rule next. Marriages promised and given are useful influences in countries friendships/hostilities to each other.

At first the story seemed a bit muted, but then things started picking up, and the details left me wondering ’what turn will the story take next’? And cheering or groaning as the emperors make their decisions (or lack them) or begin/finish their rule.
And at times, you wish you could see some things described within, like the mechanical animals of gold and precious stones, or certain buildings that no longer exist. Battles are also sometimes interesting and no doubt occasionally impressive to see.

But really, like the first part, this became such an enjoyable ride that I felt a bit lost as it was finished. Still, loved it, loved the details, loved the history, and can say this was a great reading experience.

With another well-written book, Mr. Norwich continues his march through Byzantine history, crafting a highly readable and equally enjoyable tale. His writing style fluid, Mr. Norwich knows how to present history in an engaging manner while sprinkling in just the right amount of wit and delightful vocabulary. Byzantine history would be helped tremendously if those olden folk had branched out away from the eight or so names they seemed to be have recycled endlessly. By the end of the book I found I couldn't remember any details or past characters, but I suppose that isn't Mr. Norwich's fault.

The one thing that could have improved this book, which is the same critique I had of his first volume, is to pull back from Byzantium more often to see what the surrounding peoples were doing. For instance, there is next to nothing said about what is happening in Europe, and other than when they intersected with the Byzantines, Islamic peoples are likewise invisible. Still, this is an excellent read and a highly enjoyable book.

second in the series on Byzantium. One gets heady with the power of an empire at full bloom. Norwich can really tell a tale.

Volume 2 of Norwich's Byzantium trilogy did not disappoint. Another informative and well written history that isn't too academic and reads like a real life Game of Thrones. I have just picked up Volume 3 for the Christmas holiday.

An excellent book on the whole. There are a few issues—Norwich's writing becomes a little formulaic at times, and the book is almost polemic in its style at times. Given that this is popular history though, and outstanding popular history at that, I find this excusable.

My Amazon review on April 19, 2018: Byzantium 102

With little background in the subject except for Volume I in the Norwich series I have nothing to compare this against and little insight into the accuracy. Given his solid reputation however, I suspect that it is as accurate as it needs to be for the purpose. He repeatedly states when the narrative is venturing onto 'thin ice' and where sources are lacking in details (quite often). This is not a true academic work I suppose, but it is more detailed history than most people probably need or want. His 1-volume history of Byzantium might be sufficient for a primer and this 3-volume history is one step beyond but still feels hurried at times. The narrative is eminently readable and fascinating if you have any interest in the subject or imagination. I certainly recall almost no teaching of Byzantine history in my school days, after Rome is sacked a few times that is that last you ever heard of anything to do with the Roman Empire. Maybe it was mentioned that the Ottomans conquered Constantinople, not even sure about that. Basically it went something like this: 'Rome fell, the Dark Ages ensued and then on to the Renaissance'. But what a history was ignored! The Byzantine story is a simply amazing tale of everything that is human. Greed, deception, cruelty, lust, bravery, glory, faith and more. The Dark Ages may have existed in western Europe but clearly a lot was going on in the 'East'. A history of the incessant warfare on every front would alone be worthy of several separate texts and the maps in that regard are lacking. Not sure there is much documentation however on many of these clashes. Even the location of the pivotal Battle of Manzikert is not well-known. Speaking of which, anyone who thinks that the Crusades ignited the clash between Islam and Christianity ought to become familiar with Byzantine history. One could make a very strong case that its resistance saved the entire 'west' from subjugation (or at least the women). I am looking forward to Volume 3 as the first two books have ignited my interest. Is Gibbon worth reading? That is one question I have.

An excellent survey of the Byzantine Empire at its apex. Provides a fascinating portrait of the men and women who are recorded from this time, and Norwich provides a very fascinating argument as to why the Empire began to decline after the death of Basil II. The greatest drawback of this book is how, like most broad history's tends to fall into monarch chronicling and making life in the Imperial court as life in the Empire. Besides that, it is a very compelling read.

See my comments on volume 1

A very interesting (and entertaining) read.

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).

Its superb book, second volume of story about Byzantine Rome.

When Bizantine fought with Russians and Bulgarians, despise that Romans had giving slavs gold .

When Vladimir Svyatoslavich the Great got baptized only to marry Anna was a Porphyrogenita who expressed deep distress on her way to her wedding.

Byzantine fought with muslims too.

Tow great victorious for Byzantine Rome are:

-Nikephoros captured city of adata of pamphylia.

-capturing city of Samosata, now Samsat at Eufrat river by John Tzimiskes.

-Afther that alians of Otto the saxon, Otto I and Ommaya
caliphate(lands of spain) of cordoba happend to be fiasco.
---
There was Byzantine renaissance , Macedonian(Roman-Slavic) Renaissance is a historiographical term used for the blossoming of Byzantine culture in the 9th–11th centuries, under the eponymous Macedonian dynasty (867–1056), following the upheavals and transformations of the 7th–8th centuries, also known as the "Byzantine Dark Ages".


Iconoclastic Controversy, a dispute over the use of religious images (icons) in the Byzantine Empire in the 8th and 9th centuries. ... The defenders of the use of icons insisted on the symbolic nature of images and on the dignity of created matter.

They has been Forbidding of depicting Saints and Mary of Jesus with sculptures and only allowing for iconography in two dimensional portrait that is showing already dead figures. Not to forget that Muslims themselves has been against any means of depicting iconography, that has been convinced that faith can only be word of god.
---
Among other are Henry the Fowler

As the first Saxon king of East Francia, Henry was the founder of the Ottonian dynasty. He and his descendants ruled East Francia, and later the Holy Roman Empire, from 919 until 1024.

Otto the Great that brought holly roman empire into glory not seen since Charlemagne.

And title Latinized as Porphyrogenitus, was an honorific title in the Byzantine Empire given to a son, or daughter (Πορφυρογέννητη, Porphyrogénnētē, Latinized Porphyrogenita), born after the father had become emperor.

The Ottonian rulers were successors of the Germanic king Conrad I who was the only Germanic king to rule in East Francia after the Carolingian dynasty and before this dynasty.
---
And finally Isaac I Komnenos or Comnenus who lost his empire to Richard the Lionheart during the Third Crusade.

And his wife Theodora Komnene, who married King Baldwin III of Jerusalem.

It was likely not an abduction; Andronikos was already married, and had already had an affair with Philippa, a sister of Prince Bohemund III of Antioch and of Manuel's wife Maria of Antioch, and he was likely trying to escape persecution by Manuel, who did not approve of these incestuous affairs.
---
Bulgaria found land to settle at because they won with Byzantine Rome, although there was The Uprising of Peter, that was a major Bulgarian rebellion against the Byzantine Empire in the Theme of Bulgaria.

Is wise to remember Battle of Ongal, and Battle of Boulgarophygon indeed.

It was fought between the Bulgarians, who had recently invaded the Balkans, and the Byzantine Empire, which ultimately lost the battle. The battle was crucial for the creation of the First Bulgarian Empire

Battle of Boulgarophygon

Simeon would go on to inflict a number of defeats on the Byzantines in pursuit of his ultimate goal, the throne in Constantinople. The peace treaty that was signed as a result of the battle confirmed the Bulgarian domination in the Balkans.

The result was an annihilation of the Byzantine army which determined the Bulgarian victory in the trade war of 894–896

The Byzantine–Bulgarian war of 894–896 (Bulgarian: Българо–византийска война от 894–896) was fought between the Bulgarian Empire and the Byzantine Empire as a result of the decision of the Byzantine emperor Leo VI to move the Bulgarian market from Constantinople to Thessaloniki

Over to the third and last volume : D