i...hm. i'm keeping this around, because norwich's prose is overall good, he's obviously got a lot of affection for his subject, and it's fine as a one-volume (if dates-and-names centric) overview of venice as a fully independent entity, but:

1. norwich in general tends to lean much more heavily on a combination of palace and military history than i prefer, and this isn't an exception. there's very little discussion of art history, of economics, or especially any kind of social or cultural history. he barely mentions the venetian jewish community, the working class, women of any group...it is, unsurprisingly from him, a very small-c conservative work. there's just, in general, not a lot of "why".

2. probably related to the above, i'm a little thrown off by what he chooses to spend time on. for instance, the entire chapter on lepanto that ends with the admission that it had zero short- or long-term tactical significance. could maybe have used that space to like...talk about something besides the succession of doges or military engagements?

As usual, Norwich is an entertaining guide through an often-overlooked (in comparison to England, France, Spain) area of Eurpoean history.

His fondness for the city, resulting in copious footnotes marking where various tombs and monuments are now located, can get a bit oppressive.

Unlike Byzantium (to which I have to admit only having read the digest version; the three-colume epic is far down on the to-read), the history of Venice is rather dull, making this a slow but ultimately rewarding read.

I read this massive brick of a book before flying up to Venice with my wife to see the in laws last Spring. They were on a European tour which wrapped up in this watery, mysterious city. And it was the perfect excuse for a quick weekend trip.

Norwich is one of my favourite history writers. I thoroughly enjoyed his account of the Catholic Popes, Absolute Monarchs. And his Venice holds up just as well.

In his introduction, Norwich talks of his father’s love of the city, and of how he travelled there often as a child. He traces the story of Venice’s rise from town to city to empire, from its 5th century beginnings as a haven for those fleeing the remains of the Western Roman Empire to the dark day in 1797 when Napoleon put an end to the thousand year old Republic.

This is a wonderful and highly readable account of a unique city, the life of its people, and some of the most interesting events in European history.

Read it even if you don’t think you have any interest in Venice. And definitely read it before you go there. You’ll explore the alleyways and canals with a much deeper appreciation for the uniqueness of this magical place.

In this one of Professor Norwich's fairly early narratives, copywrited in 1982, he has written a very reader friendly look at the history of Venice, from its earliest beginnings as a place of refuge for people fleeing the collapse of the Western Roman Empire through to its ending at the hands of Napoleon. In telling the tale of Venice, the author focuses on the political/economic history of the City state that at one time boasted it ruled a quarter and a half of the Eastern Roman Empire.

In telling the story the author looks at the pivotal events of her 1000 yrs of independence. These include the 4th Crusade's sacking of Constantinople, the rivalry with Genoa and Milan for dominance in Northern Italy and the trading routes with the East, the Battle of Lepanto, as well as the final fall of Venice. His opinion of the effect of Lepanto does not conform to the accepted view point. Her struggle with the Pope and her relative religious tolerance is also told. At one point Professor Norwich states that Venice of all the states in Western Europe was the only one not to burn anyone for heresy.

While generally a favorable and admiring look at Venice and what she accomplished. The author does not shy away from laying blame at Venice’s feet for one of the biggest disasters to befall medieval Christendom – the fall of Constantinople in 1453. He lays her fall squarely at the feet of Venice. He writes,

“The real death blow had been struck not in 1453, but in 1205 when the Latin armies of the 4th Crusade had ravage and plundered their way through Constantinople…For this tragedy, from which Byzantium had rallied, but never recovered, the Venetians were primarily responsible. Theirs were the ships; theirs was the initiative, the leadership and the driving force. Theirs too was most of the profit and much of the plunder; and theirs, at the time of the final catastrophe, must be the blame.”

I don’t know if I fully agree with this sentiment – I think the loss at Manzikret in 1071 sealed the fate of Eastern Empire, a point Professor Norwich himself makes in his later history of the Byzantine Empire. His take on the effects of probably the greatest naval battle of the middle ages is also at odds with the accepted wisdom. He feels that while a great tactical victory, strategically it really didn’t change much. Venice was already in decline and the Ottomans were about at the maximum territory they could control. Also Venice didn’t gain anything from the victory. In fact a couple of years after the battle she accepted a treaty with the Ottomans that she could have 3 yrs before the battle was fought. She also didn’t regain any of her lost possessions – specifically Cyprus and within 50 yrs lost control of Crete.

The author also makes some observations about the Venetian character and how it changed over the years. It went from a hard driving, entrepreneurial, willing to take risks for both the glory of Venice and personal gain to by 100 yrs after Lepanto, “The old public spirit evaporated, The Venetians were growing soft. Wealth had led to luxury, luxury to idleness, and idleness to inertia, even when the state itself was threatened.”
He also looks at her unique form of government and how she managed to avoid becoming dominated by one family. Some of the stories of the various Doges are really fascinating. Quite a few were quite old when elected, many over 80! In seems in the author’s opinion some of the oldest Doges were some of the best to serve the Republic.

Norwich’s opinion of Venice is summed in the final paragraph of the narrative

“And so, as one studies the domestic history of Venice, the more inescapable does the conclusion become; by whatever political standards she is judged, she compares favorably with any nation in Christendom - except maybe her final dotage. Nowhere did men live more happily; nowhere did they enjoy more freedom from fear. Venetians were fortunate indeed. Disenfranchised they might be; they were never downtrodden. Although, being human they might complain of their government, not once in all their history did they ever rise up against it... They worked hard...; they,..., knew how to enjoy themselves with style and panache; and the lived out their lives in a city even more beautiful...than what we know today.

This is an excellent read; I can’t really understand how it escaped me till now. 4.25 stars rounded down for good reads

Una maravilla de la historia narrativa, se queda muy cerca de las obras de Runciman.

The focus of the book is not what I had expected. It seemed to be very heavy in descriptions of wars.
As Venice is so beautiful, I had expected to read more about the parts of Venice that make it so unique. I did learn that Venice had a long history of being tolerant of others' ideas and religions, and that it was brought to its knees by Napoleon.

If there's a more thorough and comprehensive history of Venice than this, then I would be the first to read it. However, I doubt there is. For an overview of Venice from its earliest settlement as a group of fishing communities to its fall as a grand republic and beyond, one couldn't do much better than read this work.

A solid and even beautifully written political history of the Venetian Republic. I have to admit that it took me a long time to finish. This was partly because of the vast number of names of Doges and other officials. But, in the end, I was more disappointed with what was left out that what was included. Norwich includes nothing about Venice after Napoleon and virtually no social or cultural history. Artistic and cultural figures are treated as peripheral actors at most. Yes, this is a history of Venice without Thomas Mann, and in which Monteverdi is mentioned only once and then in passing. It doesn't really talk about Casanova or Canaletto. Even Titian and Tintoretto barely get a look in. Nor is there a detailed account of the history of the Jews or other minority groups in Venice, or indeed very much about daily life for the great mass of people. Jan Morris' book on Venice, which does not claim to be a history at all, covers most of these topics better than Norwich manages to do. It's hard to fault Norwich for not doing what he does not set out to do, and his book is a success (even a great success) according to the limits he has set for himself. But I would emphatically not recommend this as anyone's first introduction to the history of Venice.

Read this 18 months after my term in Venice because I'm an idiot. A slog to get through some parts (Italian wars in early 16th century) but the insight into the heyday of Renaissance Venice was superb. Almost, almost shed a tear at the end

This is another one of those books that I left on the shelf for an outrageous length of time, fearing that if I picked it up I might drop it and thus kill the cat. It's 673 pages long, including indices, and a close type at that. Once I finally ran out of new excuses for keeping it in my backlog, I basically inhaled the entire content in one, three-week-long draught. It just shows how expectations can confound. Norwich looks like the kind of work with which one beats off intruders, but it was, in fact, a joy to read.

I have skirted around Venice for several years now, but if you are interested in the history of the Mediterranean, of Byzantium, of piracy or of Islam - and I am interested in all of these - there comes a time when you can no longer use this work as a doorstop. Norwich is one of the standard works in the English language. The fact that it was also a pleasure to read came as an additional bonus.

Norwich is a little prone to the deformity of many history writers in that he tends to concentrate on rulers, successions and power struggles and says much less about, for instance, the health, diet and labour of the common woman. However, this bias does not run to exclusion, and it would probably have been impossible to write of Venice without discussing its trade and shipping. In any case, where Venice is concerned the political history is more interesting than it would normally be, as la Serenissima happened to be one of the Big Three key Republics of history, as I see it, coming between Rome and the USA and bringing more continuity to the idea of the Republic than I had previously considered.

Venice in Norwich's words cannot fail to appeal. In being so coldly acquisitive a mercantile power, it mostly managed to avoid partaking of the atrocities of the Middle and Late Middle Ages simply because they were bad for business. The notorious exception, Venice's role in the rape of Constantinople, Norwich manages to place in a less negative perspective, as Constantinople herself had not long before indulged in an orgy of persecution of Western Christians far more grave than the looting to which the Crusaders subjected her, and the looting was in any case much the work of Northern European mercenaries and the Franks. Still, it was Venice that turned the Fourth Crusade against Constantinople and she must bear ultimate responsibility. Norwich seeks to apologise, but the stain remains.

Otherwise, Venice seems in all respects extraordinary and admirable. Sometimes weak, true, it was forever caught in struggles with the Lombards, French and Turks, the Milanese and Genoese which it did not always manage well. Obsessed with keeping a dynasty or a tyranny from arising, it political system was excessively complex and prone to elect ineffectual and exceedingly old doges. Still, it worked. Business was free to prosper, while the reins of serious power were kept in the hands of the state. In particular, the merchants as much as the military enjoyed the services of shipyards which were nationalised and standardised to a level of productivity where at their height, when timber could be still taken for granted, they could produce a galleon per day and recover from the most injurious naval reverses in mere months.

One revelation from this book was that it was Napoleon that finally ended the days of Venice as a Republic. Another is that Venice was, originally, a Greek city in the sphere of influence of Orthodoxy. (Although if you know Italy, you'll understand that no region is truly "Italian", as the nation is a modern confection.) Possibly most interesting, however, is the previously missed realisation that it was not merely Islam's decline that was heralded with Vasco de Gama's forging of a Cape route to the East. I had long credited this with removing the Muslim world from the hub of trade and thus of history. The fact is, however, that Venice was equally hurt, and never thereafter regained her full glory. The Mediterranean, increasingly, did not matter, and a hinge of history turned to render the Atlantic the new hub. Spain and Britain rose, and the Americas began to bend the rubber sheet of the world with their gravity. Thus has Norwich added a key new understanding to my admittedly poor grasp of historical contingency.

Norwich is also responsible for perpetrating the monumental three-volume work on Byzantium. It looks like it will be my next port of call after Venice.

This is the first history book I’ve ever read and enjoyed. The story is told with a certain wit and humor that makes me appreciate it even more.

A fun read. Veers towards "popular" history but well written and engaging. The author did his research too. A solid foundational book on venic.