A Short History of Byzantium

Last year as I walked through an exhibit of Byzantine art and artifacts, I thought: "I know very little about these people. I should fix that." By the next day I'd bought this book, even if I didn't get around to reading it until this year. Though Norwich had to condense a huge amount of history into one volume, I found it wholly absorbing, even up to the last pages, with the dramatic siege and last stand of the Emperor and his city. At some point I may even check out Norwich's three-volume history on which this condensed version was based. That's how much I liked it.

The fall of Constantinople in 1453 ended what the population always identified as the Roman Empire, but has become known as the Byzantine Empire that John Julius Norwich thought had been given a bad reputation in “the West”. In “A Short History of Byzantium” Norwich condensed his three-volume history of the Greek-flavored Roman Empire into a general history for those interested in history but do not have time for lengthy studies.

In covering almost 1200 years of history in about 400 pages, Norwich had to trim to the barebones of Byzantine history with only tidbits of detail that whet the appetite to want to know more for those interested. While frustration as it might be for those who want more than a “general history”, for those looking for just a straight-forward informative history this book is concise and lively written to keep you from falling asleep.

For those wondering if they should read Norwich’s three-volume history of Byzantium then this book will let you know the author’s writing style as well as make you want to purchase the multi-volume series. For those looking only for a concise history of a nearly 1200 year old empire this is a book for you.

Constantine didn't see anything in the sky before winning a battle - the usual Xian lies. The author's explanation for the executions of Crispus and Fausta is plausible except it doesn't explain that of Licianus unless the emperor didn't want his nephew inheriting instead. Theodosius ordered revenge for a murder and his troops killed 7,000 gathered for the games in Thessalonica. The author implies Valentinian was murdered.

Lovely that Belisarius took his wife on all his campaigns. The besieging Goths let the Byzantine garrison go unharmed but killed all the men of Milan, enslaved the women, presenting them to their allies, and razed the city. The eunuch Narses, no transwoman he, defeated the Goths whose leader then died. Good! Heraclius promised his daughter to the Avar Khagan for 40,000 men. Luckily for her, the author says, the Khagan soon died.

Accused of seduction the patriarch exposed himself and got off. The Paulicians rejected all the old testament and quite a lot of the new.... Cyril invented an alphabet for translating the bible into a Slavonic that the Moravians he was converting didn't get. The pope won over the Bulgars despite disallowing bigamy. Papal legates, robbed of the Bulgars, were then robbed by pirates and held captive for nine months.

Romanus I's father was Theophylact the Unbearable. Russians died in an oil-covered sea burning like their ships. Christ's letter and shroud imprint were known to be spurious. Two co-emperors were arrested, made monks of and separately exiled. Constantine was constantly good-humoured, unfailingly courteous and never lost his temper - a paragon of virtue! After they took back Crete, the usual massacre ensued.

The Caesar lost 'his head and heart to the loveliest - and most vicious - woman.' He 'enjoyed that popularity exclusively reserved for those with one foot in the grave.' He abused ambassadors. Then had them scourged. Svyatoslav had 20,000 of a city's heroically resisting citizens impaled. He had two long strands of hair falling from a shaven head. The Caesar deflected a blow and received it across the face.

Norsemen cheerfully hacked Phocas' troops to bits. On conversion Vladimir changed and his wife, who'd expected an ogre, was perhaps relieved to bed a ...saint. Basil, dying without issue, ensured the empire's decline. The last thing Alexius wanted was hundreds of thousands of undisciplined brigands demanding food while not recognising his authority. John the Beautiful was loved for his soul. A Turk's failed flight caused laughter.

The sixty-four year old emperor married the twelve year old empress and consummated the marriage. The Sicilians pissed 'all over the church'. Barbarossa was found dead on the river bank. Villehardouin, in a haystack, was recognised by his protruding teeth. John XXI lasted seven months before the ceiling crushed him to death. 'Not a Frenchman was left alive in Palermo.' 'Disillusioned, losing every battle....' You put in a thumb and out pops a plum.

The Black Death killed eight-ninths of the population of Constantinople 1347. Manuel promised the sultan his last outpost in Asia Minor. Suleyman was taken by his brother and strangled. Constantine’s ambassadors were executed. The admiral who lost a battle was never heard of again. Nor was Constantine after throwing himself into the fray. What I liked most of the walls of Constantinople was that houses were built up against them.

Много ми е трудно да оценя това издание на книгата. Харесвам Норуич като автор и историк, тъй като подобно на сънародника си Стивън Рънсиман успява да съчетае в стила си увлекателност и научна коректност (при Рънсиман, разбира се, като професионален, сиреч унвиерситетски, историк винаги има повече научен апарат).

Целта на "Кратката история на Византия" е да бъде кратка - тя е орязана версия на тритомника на Норуич, в който получаваме един значително по-задълбочен поглед върху многовековната съдба на Източната Римска империя. Историите, които пише Норуич, освен това са предназначени за широката публика, а не за учебници, придружаващи лекционни курсове по темата (каквата например е историята на Бъри, Острогорски, Успенский, Васильев и мн. др.). По тази причина нека професионалистите в материята не се проявяват като прекалени пуритани и не критикуват прекалено наратива. За професионалистите има професионална литература. Текстът на Норуич при все това (говоря все още за английския оригинал) е коректен, поне доколкото успявам да направя преценка на база собствените ми знания.

Сега по отношение на българската версия... Не ми се иска и аз да влизам в пуританска роля, но по изданието на ИК "Прозорец" има да се кажат някои думи на градивна критика.

Първо, четейки българското и следейки английското издание на Penguin, установих, че в нашата версия на моменти липсват пасажи. Не съм си давал за задача да следя успоредно двата текста, но поне в частите за Константин Велики и при Комнините имаше отсъстващи части. Признавам, че това може да се дължи на изданието, ползвано за превод... Моето е от 1998 г.

Второ, издателите са си направили труда да преведат родословните дървета на имперските семейства, но по незнайни причини в българското издание те пропускат династиите от Диоклециан до Ираклий. В изданието не попадат и изключително полезните карти, които са приложени от Penguin. При илюстрациите, поместени на гланцираните страници, също има допуснат гаф, установен не от мен, а от мой колега - специалист по Римско право и история. В българското издание откриваме снимка на Синята джамия, под която е посочено, че това всъщност е Св. София (което не е така...). В английското издание снимката си е на Св. София. Не зная защо издателите са решили да търсят друг снимков материал, а не ползват оргиналният.

Трето, преводът... Винаги съм смятал, че преводът на специализирана литература е по-добре да се прави от специалист по материята, който владее съответния чужд език (макар и да не е преводач), отколкото от преводач, който превежда много добре, но не познава спецификите на материята. В тази връзка книгата ме озадачи... Има доста моменти, имена и понятия, които очевидно не са превеждани от историк, а в същото време книгата изобилства от безброй "бел. прев", които са въведени в текста, за да пояснят с допълнителна информация различни елементи в наратива. Видях, че по книгата са работили и двама научни консултанти, които доколкото съм запознат са преподаватели по история, но те от своя страна почти нямат бележки под линия в текста. Може би резултатът щеше да е по-добър, ако визнатинист, владеещ английски беше се захванал да преведе книгата, от което може би щеше да пострада предаването на приятния за четене стил на Норуич, но не и съдържанието. И последна бележка по превода - редно е българските преводачи от английски да седнат и да се разберат как се превежда "Foul play" - защото според мен "мръсна игра" не е съвсем удачно, или поне в труд като този.

И така, оценката ми за трудът на Норуич е със сигурност 4+*. Оценката ми за нашето издание, колкото и да е приятно на вид с твърдите корици, е около 2*. Средно давам 3*

Рядко си позволявам да се впускам в критика, тъй като принципно приветствам превеждането на англоезична популярна историческа литература на български език, но Норуич ми е любим автор и нямаше как да не си споделя болките.

_A Short History of Byzantium_ by John Julius Norwich was a well-written and comprehensive overview of largely the political history of the Byzantine Empire. At times the book felt a bit hurried as Emperor after Emperor rushed by, but then that is understandable given several facts. First, Norwich was covering the entire history of Byzantium, its 1,123 year lifespan from its founding as the Roman Empire of the East by Constantine the Great in 330 to its end when Constantine XI died fighting with his men the forces of the Turkish sultan Mehmet II in 1453. During that time 88 men and women occupied the imperial throne, some for very short periods of time. Second, this work is a condensed version of an earlier trilogy Norwich had written on the history of Byzantium, the three volumes titled _The Early Centuries_, _The Apogee_, and _The Decline and Fall_. At times one could feel that there was more to a particular story than the author was relating or that he could have gone into more detail but space in the 383 page book would not allow it. Still, it was a very useful and interesting introduction to an often popularly neglected period of world history.

The stars of the book are the rulers of the Byzantine Empire, the eighty-eight men and women as well as the seven rulers who usurped the throne during the Latin occupation as a result of the Fourth Crusade in 1204. They ranged across the spectrum of political rulers, from highly skilled diplomats to great generals to thugs and self-absorbed pleasure seekers and hedonists, from those dominated by bureaucrats to darlings of the military. Notable ones included Justinian I, who had restored much of the lost Roman Empire in the sixth century and was the "last truly Roman Emperor;" Heraclius (565-641), who defeated the Persian Empire forever and saved Byzantium, even besting one of its leaders in personal combat, and who made Greek, long the language of the people and the Church, the official language of the Empire, and John Palaeologus, who in 1366 was the first Emperor to leave his capital as a petitioner for much needed aid from the Christian West.

Also major players in the book were the succession of enemies that challenged Byzantium through the centuries, ranging from the final days of the Western Roman Empire to Byzantium's end in the 15th century. At various times the Goths, Huns, Vandals, Lombards, Persians, Arabs, Bulgars, Turks, Russians, Normans, Venetians, French, and Serbs threatened the Empire, each dealt with in their turn until the Turks proved in the end victorious. Norwich profiled some of the great adversaries of the Empire, including the great Gothic leader Alaric in the fourth century, fifth century Attila, the Great Bulgar Khan known as Krum from the ninth century, twelfth century Roger II King of Sicily, and the Doge Enrico Dandolo, the blind Venetian leader who in his eighties was instrumental in conquering Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade.

Norwich impressed upon the reader how deeply concerned with religion the rulers and common people of Byzantium were, commenting that it may be difficult for modern day readers to comprehend the involvement, indeed passion, of all classes of society in what would appear today to be "impossibly abstruse doctrinal niceties." Strangely, from the first Constantine the Great was tolerant of pagan faiths (and even one emperor, Julian the Apostate - 337-363 - sought to turn back the clock to paganism) but not of heretical Christian ones. Much of Byzantine history was concerned with struggles against various sects and schisms in Christendom, the Emperor and the religious leaders of Constantinople conflicting with the Donatists of North Africa and the Meletians of Egypt in the 4th century, the 5th century Arian heresy (its devotees, the Nestorians, preaching that Christ had two distinct persons, one human, one divine) and the monophysites (who believed in a single divine nature of Christ), the monophysites again in the 6th century, and on many occasions the Pope in Rome. The biggest and most culturally and political wrenching of the religious conflicts was arguably the iconoclasm conflict; starting in the 720s a group known as the iconoclasts felt that there was too much veneration of sacred objects and in particular sacred paintings, mosaics, and sculptures, with iconodules openly worshipping and praying to particular icons and statues.

The Byzantines had a big monastic movement, so large that some Emperors, such as Constantine Copronymus, sought to close monasteries and force monks and nuns to marry and worried about a dangerous depopulation trend and plummeting manpower for farming and military use.

Emperors personally were deeply involved in religion. Some Emperors sought an end to upstart sects or to heal the breach with Rome for political reasons; others due to intense theological interest, and some for both reasons. Many an Emperor or Empress abdicated and retired from public life to a monastery or a convent. Also quite a few were sent there against their will, sometimes several times, as the result of various courtly intrigues and power struggles.

Speaking of power struggles, for all their religion the Byzantines could be a cruel people. Though there were many benevolent Emperors, quite a few were not and even some of the good ones rose to power through murder, torture, and mutilation (though also several of them sincerely regretted that later in life). A number of Emperors dispatched the children, even young children, of past rulers as well as their adult supporters, the more benign ones exiling them to monasteries or convents, others imprisoning them, or sometimes personally strangling them with bowstrings, beheading them, or even slowly torturing them to death. Blinding was a very common fate for rivals, particularly rival claimants to the throne, sometimes done publicly. For a time something called rhinokopia, the removal of the nose, was performed, the idea being no Emperor could rule that had obvious physical defects, though Justinian II "Rhinotmetus" proved he could rule without a nose, pretty much ending the practice.

Was disappointed in this book, which is a condensed version of a previous multi-volume history by the author. He focusses primarily on bios of the various rulers of Byzantium over the years, with the history going on around them as more of an afterthought. This may be fine for some people, but I would have preferred the opposite. Bio after bio becomes repetitious after a while, and you never get a sense of how what was going on in Byzantium fit in with the overall history of the world at the time. As a result I did not get the larger historical picture I was looking for.

The previous multi-volume history may rectify this, but I'll leave that to someone else to determine.

Norwich compresses three volumes into one in his Short History covering the 1100 years and 88 emperors of Byzantium. As you turn the pages, the centuries roll by quickly. It soon becomes hard to remember exactly who did what to whom and when. Although some figures stand out such as Constantine I, Justinian I and Basil II. There is an upside to this compacted presentation. One gets a feel for the sweep of history. It is easier to see what changes and what stays the same over the centuries. Below are some notes on a few things that caught my attention.

First there was the extreme brutality practiced routinely by the Byzantines and every tribe or state they encountered. Poisoning, stabbing, hacking to death, raping, blinding, castrating, nose slitting, cutting out tongues and off ears, hands and feet were all just part of a day’s work. Such measures were imposed on foreign enemies and competing family members alike. Second was the constant war and infighting. Palace intrigues and coups were constant. There was always a war underway or in preparation be it with the Goths, Vandals, Huns, Persians, Franks, Bulgars, Normans, Turks, Arabs, whoever. Of course these groups were also constantly engaged in infighting and wars with their neighbors. In violence at all levels there seemed to be little difference between any century or people.

Third were the unbelievably arcane religious disputes within Christianity that had significant geopolitical consequences. Particularly intense were the disputes over the nature of Jesus which created deep divisions and tensions. The predominant Christian view was adopted by the Council of Ephesus in 431. It held that Jesus was of one substance with the father and was Devine and human united in one individual existence (one being with a dual nature). Arianism was adopted by some Roman emperors and Goths, Vandals and Lombards. It held that Jesus was created by the Father and subordinate to Him (in essence more human than God). Monophytism was popular in the early Christian Middle Eastern churches. It held that Jesus had one nature, Devine (more God than human). Also popular in early Eastern Christian churches was Nestorianism which held that Jesus had two loosely united natures, human and Devine (essentially occupying two separate existences, one God and one human).

If heresy over the dual nature of Christ didn’t make your blood boil (perhaps literally for those caught in the wrong place and time), then there was the equally unfathomable Filioque controversy which engendered intense animosity between Orthodox and Roman Christianity. The Latin Church believed as in the Nicene Creed that the Holy Spirit processes from the Father and the Son. The Orthodox Church believed that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father. This dispute had important consequences since the Popes used this controversy to portray the Orthodox “schismatics” as evil as the infidels. Thus Western European states were often encouraged to not only deny Byzantium support against the Turks but to attack it for its heresy. When Byzantine emperors desperate for Western support tried to compromise by saying the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father through the Son, they were ostracized by both churches.

The Byzantine Empire was founded by Constantine the Great in 330. This Eastern Roman Empire would survive a thousand years past the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the fifth century. The last truly Roman Emperor of Byzantium was Justinian I in the in the sixth century. It was during Justinian’s reign that the empire reached its greatest extent encompassing most of the Mediterranean coast, North Africa, Italy, the Balkans and the Arab Middle East. The last Emperor who ascribed to Roman traditions was Heraclius in the seventh century. Afterwards Greek titles would be used and the Greek language become official as it had been in the Eastern Church.

In the seventh century the rise of the Muslim world changed the usual mix of wars Byzantium fought with the Persians and the barbarian tribes (Goths, Vandals, Bulgars, Huns). The Muslims were soon laying siege to Constantinople. The author contends that “Had the Saracens captured Constantinople in the seventh century rather than the fifteenth, all Europe - and America - might be Muslim today.” The Byzantine Empire was one of ceaseless power battles and cruelty. While the Byzantines had a much higher literacy rate than the barbarians, the savagery was equally distributed.

The Empire diminished following Justinian. The 8th century found it caught up in a passionate internal religious dispute that would last 100 years. Iconoclasm held that sacred images should not be allowed, similar to Islamic beliefs. As the movement gathered steam, a vast amount of fine Byzantine art was destroyed. Byzantium regained its mojo in the late ninth, tenth early eleventh century under the Macedonian Dynasties with Constantinople becoming the wealthiest city in Europe. The Empire reached its apogee under Basil II in the early eleventh century. From that point on it would decline. In 1054 the Eastern Orthodox and Western Roman Catholic churches permanently split, something that had been a long time in coming.

In 1203 Byzantium was sacked by the crusaders of the Fourth Crusade. The Crusade had started out as a Western Christian effort to recapture Jerusalem which had earlier fallen to Saladin. However the Doge of Venice, the eighty year old blind Enrico Dandolo, wanted to take down Byzantium. With the promise of the plunder of the richest city in the world he got the crusaders to forget Jerusalem much to the consternation of the Pope. Instead the crusading Franks and Germans joined the Venetians to conquer and ravage Constantinople. The mass murder, rape, pillaging and destruction devastated Byzantium. Permanently weakened it would never again be able to adequately defend itself and would ultimately fall to the Ottomans. Ironically men fighting under the cross did what the Saracens never could. Without a viable Byzantium the rest of Christendom was left vulnerable to Muslim attack.

The Latins ruled Constantinople for 57 years. The Greek Orthodox tradition was carried on in small states in Anatolia and the Adriatic Coast. The Mongols occupied the attention of the Bulgars and Turks while the Franks and Venetians in Constantinople grew weaker. Finally a deal with Genoa returned Constantinople to Orthodox leadership. But the theological split between the Western and Eastern Church had turned to one of bitter hate for what the Latins did to Constantinople, now a ruined city never to regain its splendor. Byzantium lingered on for two more centuries despite constant threats from its numerous enemies and devastating bouts of plague. By the time it fell in 1453 to the Ottoman Turks, it was a shell of its former self consisting only of Constantinople and an impoverished small populace.

I have mixed feelings about this book. As a learning experience it was time well spent. Norwich delivers an authoritative overview of Byzantium and lets us see Western Europe and the Middle East through the eyes of the Byzantines. I appreciated this different perspective. However a huge amount of history was condensed into just 400 pages. Trying to save time by selecting Norwich’s abridged version I probably shortchanged myself. I suspect his full length history is much more enjoyable. For in the intervals where Norwich isn’t just reciting facts, I can see he is an engaging writer. When my interest again returns to the Middle Ages I’ll definitely check out the three volume set.

This was a highly-detailed and researched history of the Byzantine Empire. Having said that, it also was fast-paced as it swiftly moved from one topic to the next. This was the condensed version of a much larger three-volume and intrusive work by John Julius Norwich. The three major works were abridged to fit into this smaller paperback: The Early Centuries, 337 to 802, The Apogee, 802 to 1081, and The Decline, 1081 to 1453.

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. During those one thousand, one hundred amd twenty-three years and eighteen days, eighty-eight men and women occupied the imperial throne, excluding the seven who usurped it during the Latin occupation. There were a lot of leaders to follow: Constantine and his successors, Justinian, Heraclius, two Basils, Alexius Comnenus—possessed true greatness; a few like Phocas, Michael III, Zoe and Angeli—were contemptible. The Byzantines, on the contrary 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 renwoned for scholarship; a soceity which alone preserved much of the heritage of Greek and Latin antiquity, during these dark centuries in the West when the lights of learning were almost extinguished; a society, finally, which produced astonishing phenomenon of Byzantine art. Restricted this art may have been, largley confined to the great mystery of the Christian faith; within this limtation, however, it achieved a degree of intensity and exaltation unparalleled before or since, antiquities which entitle the masterpieces. (pgs 382-3)

Overall this was a thorough history of a rich empire of Western culture and civilization. I would like to read the full three-volumes one day to get a more extensive look into the history. I would recommend this to anyone wanting to learn about the Byzantine Empire. Thanks!