I found this to be a fascinating book as it finally revealed to me the glorious story of the Byzantine Empire during the period when it was at its height of prestige and power from 800 to 1110 A.D. I had wanted to know this history for a long time but had not read anything about it, and this satisfied me greatly. It is a tale of courage and cowardice, of heroes and knaves, of great victories and terrible defeats, all told within the story of the rise and fall of so many who sought to take over the throne of this last surviving part of the Roman Empire.

The story of Byzantium in itself is unbelievable but told by Mr. Norwich it's simply outstanding. It's a towering achievement of storytelling, scholarship, and style. The things that happened to and in Byzantium are... byzantine to say the least but Mr. Norwich guided me through it with clarity and a clear sense of purpose, he never lost sight of his goal: to tell the story of this hugely important and almost completely forgotten, 1000 years old empire.

I much prefer this trilogy to Bethany Hughes book. It's challenging at times. It was difficult for me to keep the count of all the Emperors. Sometimes I had to go 20-40 pages back and read them again (even more true for the third book that I'm currently reading) but it was worth it.

4.5 / 5.0

Extremely well written with smooth transitions. Tight but comprehensive

n  (9 July, 2020)n

Once again this is an infinitely readable overview of the byzantine history of the Byzantine Empire (see what I did there?). It is so easy to lose one's self what with multiple 'Bardas', 'Nicephoras', 'Basil', 'Michael', 'Romanus' and others but Norwich keeps it all clear and comprehensible. As in 'part 1', I would like to read more about surrounding events and people but realise it would make this a 2000 page (e)book!

... one to go!

在第一部把大量背景信息交代完之后，这第二部就渐渐显出作者在文笔和叙事上的相对平庸了。在走马灯般的皇位更迭中，作者就把拜占庭的巅峰时期给讲完了。这么个“巅峰”给我的感觉，更像是作者下的一个理性的定义，而缺乏某些情绪和细节的传递。这应该是本书最明显的短板了吧。

John Norwich is a great writer. The stories he told in this book are engaging, for several reasons. He frequently helped the reader review past events and made comparisons and reasonable analysis (e.g. "Originally established by Constantine the Great at the time of his foundation of the city, it had been largely rebuilt by Justinian; but that was nearly three hundred years before, and Theophilus was probably well justified in deciding that alterations and improvements were long overdue", p44). Occasionally these events occurred well out of the historical scope he was dealing with or fast forward to later time (e.g. "Normans of south Italy under their leader Robert Guiscard - the most dazzling military adventurer between Julius Caesar and Napoleon", p307) I consider these digressions scattered throughout the book necessary and pedagogically beneficial. Secondly, his frequent use of "the most" or "the first" perks up the spirit of the reader, who might feel boredom in reading certain passages. But of course his superlatives in subjective evaluation may not always be generally accepted by scholars or readers (e.g. "the Prince of Kiev was baptized by the local bishop in what was perhaps the most fateful religious ceremony in Russian history" in referring to Vladimir's scout for a religion for his people and adoption of Christianity, p245; or "Constantine X Ducas - arguably the most disastrous ruler ever", p338).

A non-specialist may find the book stimulating due to the author's selection of historical facts. As other reviewers pointed out, the writing is in Thomas Carlyle's "great hero" tradition, focusing on political figures such as emperors and military generals in preference to the ordinary people, and largely brushing aside other aspects of the rich history of Byzantium, such as economy, science, art. The truth is that an average reader not in the profession of historical research is greatly interested in story-telling, especially that of dynastic changes and the historical figures involved, as opposed to analysis of economy or science and technology. As to the history of the people, as for example in Howard Zinn's tradition, that would indeed be a necessary supplement for the completeness of the picture if not for political correctness. But for Mr. Norwich, it would be beyond the scope of his project, and probably be a tall order for any writer to create an equally engaging narrative under the condition of scarcity of extant documents that help complete stories of an ordinary person.

Mr. Norwich is probably a good scholar, or at least has a bent for serious scholarship. The book is strictly kept within the boundary of historical non-fiction. In case of insufficient primary sources and conflicting views of modern historians on a certain event, he readily acknowledged it and presented different versions of the story in the text instead of choosing the most dramatic one just to attract readers. I believe Mr. Norwich is very fluent in French (and Russian, as that's on his academic degree at Oxford too), probably in Latin as well, judging by the sources he used. His frequent citation of modern scholars suggests that he kept abreast of the research as of the time of his writing, and in case of disagreement, he posited his own theory as impartial as possible (e.g. he disagrees with Prof. Bury who suggests that Michael V "has been unfairly maligned", pp1041-).

The list of Emperors with reigning years and other appendices at the end greatly help us avoid mixing up the characters, many of whom are namesakes. The year number on the upper right corner of each odd-numbered page is a wonderful invention; you can immediately find out what year the event described on this page occurred in, or what pages talk about the events of a given year. The book uses foot notes instead of end notes to minimize interruption in reading. The book is well indexed, and Google Books is authorized for "snippet view" so you can easily search with keywords.

This author has written several book on Mediterranean history - I first read The Kingdom in the Sun, about medieval Sicily, many years ago and loved it. He writes in a very readable style: his interest in culture and art generally, and in historical figures as real people, makes his books a great introduction to what would otherwise be quite an academic area. This one is the middle of a trilogy covering the thousand year history of the Byzantine Empire, which despite being thoroughly Greek in language and culture always thought of itself as the continuation of the Roman Empire. The years covered are approximately from 800 to 1100, when the Byzantines were at the peak of their power and influence, having just withstood the initial expansion of the great Arab Caliphate and were now dealing with Western Europe where "Catholic" Christianity was slipping away from their "Orthodox" version, Charlemagne being crowned Emperor by the Pope (a double insult), attacks from the Bulgars and Russians to the north and Arabs from everywhere else, and internal civil wars and political intrigues. The list of references is impressive and the author's ability to read scholarly works in French, German and other languages gives him an extremely comprehensive and well-rounded grasp of his subject. My only criticism would be that he sometimes gets a little carried away when describing characters' motivations and behaviours - largely educated guesswork! - but this does add a lot of colour and his interpretations could well be correct. I'd highly recommend all his books.

This is volume II of III of the history of the Byzantine Empire. This volume, unlike the first one, covers a relatively short period of time: from the year 800 with the coronation of Charlemagne as Emperor of the Western Empire to Easter Day 1081, when Alexius Comnenus takes the reins of Byzantium.

The Empire in this period defends and expands its frontiers against a series of kingdoms, tribes, and other empires in every direction. North Africa, the Caucasus, the Middle East. The Russians make their debut as a force from the northeast, descending from the Black Sea to the bosphorus, but leaving without attacking Constantinople. Also in the northeast, the insatiable Pechenegs, of whom emperor Michael VII wrote that “it is… to our advantage to keep the peace with the Pecheneg nation…”, to give them whatever they ask for and in good grace. Then there are Bulgars, Slavs, Saracens, Avars, Normans, Lombards, many others and, of course, Turks.

Volume II continues the glorious voyage of the first book, it’s a trip of wonderment, amazement, and learning. It is very much centered on the personas of Emperors and senior officers, and not much on social or economical tides that affected and shaped the empire. This is just an observation, and not a criticism like the one barked by W. E. Lecky’s in History of European Morals (1869):

“The history of the Empire is a monotonous story of the intrigues of priests, eunuchs and women, of poisonings, of conspiracies, of uniform ingratitude, of perpetual fratricides.”

Hard to understand how the word “monotonous” can survive in the previous sentence!

Magisterial but approachable. Some of the easiest-reading history I've ever encountered. Norwich's passion for the subject shines throughout.

какое же отдохновенье - читать текст Нориджа, изложенный нормальным тоном, без идиотской аффектации и этого умильного сюсюканья. тут, можно сказать, подытоживается вся история Византии, хотя до ее конца еще далеко:

"Но счастье и гармония были редкими гостями а Византии..."

все это, как прекрасно известно, - из-за христианства. Норидж открытым текстом пишет, что империи лучше было б оставаться языческой, а Юлиан "Отступник" был прав. от христианства сплошное зло, а церковь всегда была жуткой блядью. (хотя на самом деле любовь к сослагательному наклонению его иногда подводит, но кто может ему запретить фантазировать на любимую тему, да?)

еще один анекдот эпохи - окончательный раскол восточной и западной церквей в 1054 году, нелепый и анекдотичный, как британский сатирический телесериал. тогда-то христианство окончательно доказало всю свою ничтожность, а после и посейчас только пробивает все новые и новые донья. сам автор говорит нам, что "из этой истории невозможно ничему научиться".

ну и с 860 года возникает еще одно зло, бессмысленно и беспощадное - русские варвары из волжского каганата под управлением этих своих норвегов, которым все никак на месте не сиделось, потому что уж очень у них, сука, холодно. модус вивенди и операнди у них был простой: грабить, чтобы грабить, насиловать, чтобы насиловать, убивать, чтобы убивать. за столько времени, как видим, ничего не изменилось, только позорное пятно расползлось по цивилизации шире и приблизительно научилось разговаривать.

поход т.н. Вещего Олега, стало быть, судя по всему, - легенда, а вот поход Игоря через почти 30 лет документально засвидетельствован как бессмысленное и беспощадное неразборчивое зло (так что тут ничего нового до сих пор). к счастью, смогли отразить - весь русский флот в 941 году разъебали греческим огнем (заметьте схожесть дат с поправкой на тысячелетие), так что т.н. победам русского оружия в Черном море издревле грош цена. и только после этого с ними стало возможно договариваться, то есть - покупать их с потрохами.

в 960 году русские, уже как наемники Византии, внесли свою лепту в захват Крита у сарацин. русский отряд наебенился так, что сарацины просто всех перерезали, хотя до тех пор (и после) кампания развивалась вполне успешно.

ускоренная перемотка на 10 лет, к 970 году. Святослав Игоревич идет завоевывать Византию через Болгарию, представляя захватническую войну так, что во Фракии де они должны "не посрамить русскую землю", как об этом, захлебываясь от вернопоодданического восторга, нам сообщают летописи. когда это во Фракии земля была русской, хрен его знает, конечно, но факт остается фактом: мотивировка была именно такая. при Аркадиополе их вполне зрелищно разъебали, как известно всем - кроме русских источников, убежденных, что русские там одержали победу. как это можно считать победой, я не знаю, но с тех пор и повелась традиция русской историографии - на черное говорить белое и вертеть законом и историей что дышлом. историки постыдливей, правда, потом придумали какую-то другую битву где-то в другом месте, и вот _там-то_ русские действительно одержали победу, но где это было и когда, от нас утаивают до сих пор. так что врать и преувеличивать, можно сказать, - исторически доказанная национальная черта русских. это помимо склонности к захватам чужого и тяги к бессмысленному и неразборчивому насилию.

местами, правда, автор пускает петуха, как и в первом томе с топонимами. тут у нас на календаре, например, 995 год, а болгарский царь "держит порох сухим", ага. до применения пороха в Европе еще лет 300, еще и слова тако��о не было. "греческий огонь" был, но это не порох, а напалм.

a classic, beautifully written.