What do you think?
Rate this book
The Alexiad
'The shining light of the world, the great Alexius'
Anna Comnena (1083-1153) wrote The Alexiad as an account of the reign of her father, the Byzantine Emperor Alexius I. It is also an important source of information on the Byzantine war with the Normans, and the First Crusade, in which Alexius participated. While the Byzantines were allied to the Crusaders, they were none the less critical of their behaviour and Anna's book offers a startlingly different perspective from that of Western historians. Her character sketches are shrewd and forthright - from the Norman invader Robert Guiscard ('nourished by mainfold Evil') and his son Bohemond ('like a streaking thunderbolt') to Pope Gregory VII ('unworthy of a high priest'). The Alexiad is a vivid and dramatic narrative, which reveals as much about the character of its intelligent and dynamic author as it does about the fascinating period through which she lived.
E.R.A. Sewter's translation captures all the strength and immediacy of the original and is complemented by an introduction that examines Anna's life and times. This edition also includes maps, appendices, genealogical tables, a bibliography and indexes of events and names.
Anna Comnena (1083-1153) wrote The Alexiad as an account of the reign of her father, the Byzantine Emperor Alexius I. It is also an important source of information on the Byzantine war with the Normans, and the First Crusade, in which Alexius participated. While the Byzantines were allied to the Crusaders, they were none the less critical of their behaviour and Anna's book offers a startlingly different perspective from that of Western historians. Her character sketches are shrewd and forthright - from the Norman invader Robert Guiscard ('nourished by mainfold Evil') and his son Bohemond ('like a streaking thunderbolt') to Pope Gregory VII ('unworthy of a high priest'). The Alexiad is a vivid and dramatic narrative, which reveals as much about the character of its intelligent and dynamic author as it does about the fascinating period through which she lived.
E.R.A. Sewter's translation captures all the strength and immediacy of the original and is complemented by an introduction that examines Anna's life and times. This edition also includes maps, appendices, genealogical tables, a bibliography and indexes of events and names.
560 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1148
290 people are currently reading
5390 people want to read
About the author
Anna Comnena
64 books39 followersThe Byzantine historian Anna Komnene, Latinized as Comnena (December 1, 1083 – 1153) was the eldest child of the Emperor Alexios I Komnenos and Irene Doukaina, and is considered the first female historian. From earliest childhood Anna was in daily contact with the leading figures of the Empire. Through her social position and own interest, she obtained an education in literature and philosophy given to few women in the Middle Ages.
Disappointed in her hopes to be named heir to her father instead of her brother John, and again by not having her husband Nikephoros Bryennios named as Emperor, Anna conspired with her mother against her brother to gain her husband the throne but ultimately failed after her husband's refusal to cooperate. After Bryennios' death in 1137 she and her mother were exiled to a remote monastery to live out the rest of their lives.
There she wrote The Alexiad, a historical account of her father’s reign, which is unique in that it was written by a princess about her father and is a rare primary source of the Byzantine Empire in the eleventh century and the First Crusade from a non-Western point of view. The book also contributes to understanding of the female mentality, mindset, and perception of the world during Byzantine times.
Adapted from the author biography in the Penguin edition of The Alexiad and Wikipedia
Disappointed in her hopes to be named heir to her father instead of her brother John, and again by not having her husband Nikephoros Bryennios named as Emperor, Anna conspired with her mother against her brother to gain her husband the throne but ultimately failed after her husband's refusal to cooperate. After Bryennios' death in 1137 she and her mother were exiled to a remote monastery to live out the rest of their lives.
There she wrote The Alexiad, a historical account of her father’s reign, which is unique in that it was written by a princess about her father and is a rare primary source of the Byzantine Empire in the eleventh century and the First Crusade from a non-Western point of view. The book also contributes to understanding of the female mentality, mindset, and perception of the world during Byzantine times.
Adapted from the author biography in the Penguin edition of The Alexiad and Wikipedia
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 117 reviews
January 10, 2016
I've been thinking a lot about reviewing lately.
For a time I considered stopping entirely. It sometimes gets very stressful to read a book while searching for quotes to use and things to mention, not being able to actually enjoy the book because too much time and focus goes towards planning the eventual review.
Which is bloody ridiculous.
It's sad to say this, but I've been putting too much energy into reviewing. It should only be done for fun, and that's what I'm going to do from now on.
Which is why I'm going to go a lot more easy when reviewing the books I'm reading nowadays. From now on, I will only be writing reviews for the books I actually feel like reviewing. And instead... I'll be spending some time writing the best review I've ever written for a book as remarkably unknown as this one. Because it's special to me. But most of all because I want to.
Life's too short for doing too many things we don't enjoy.
So... full review, for the 800-year-old history book that means more to Markus than almost all the fictional books he's ever read, to come.
*phew* This must be the longest pre-review I've written.
For a time I considered stopping entirely. It sometimes gets very stressful to read a book while searching for quotes to use and things to mention, not being able to actually enjoy the book because too much time and focus goes towards planning the eventual review.
Which is bloody ridiculous.
It's sad to say this, but I've been putting too much energy into reviewing. It should only be done for fun, and that's what I'm going to do from now on.
Which is why I'm going to go a lot more easy when reviewing the books I'm reading nowadays. From now on, I will only be writing reviews for the books I actually feel like reviewing. And instead... I'll be spending some time writing the best review I've ever written for a book as remarkably unknown as this one. Because it's special to me. But most of all because I want to.
Life's too short for doing too many things we don't enjoy.
So... full review, for the 800-year-old history book that means more to Markus than almost all the fictional books he's ever read, to come.
*phew* This must be the longest pre-review I've written.
Read
January 1, 2019For me the most interesting thing about Anna Comena's biography of her father is how much hard work it was to be a Byzantine Emperor.
There seem to be constant hordes of enemies, external and internal (whack a mole rebellions), while every soldier to fight in their support needs to scrapped from the bottom of the barrel.
Her narrative is indispensable for those interested in the 1st crusade and is ironically, considering her lack of love for the westerners, the most widely available primary source. Comena does have the irritating habit of referring to western Europeans as Kelts (and her description of them is strongly reminiscent of earlier Roman and Greek descriptions of the celts), Egyptians as Babylonians and Hagarines for Muslims it was good style apparently to be as archaic, if not as obscure as possible in your nomenclature for the educated writer. At that same time this implies that nothing has ever changed the Roman Empire still does battle with the Celts and the Babylonians just as it did a thousand years (and more!) earlier. Everything is eternal and unchanging the narrative implies, thus gracefully covering over the fact that the Commene family had only recently seized the Imperial throne through marriage and their right to rule was not universally taken seriously (hence the rebellions).
There are some insights and stories - like the one of her mother in labour - that presumably a man of the household would not have access to, but because of the focus on her father and on him as a successful and able politician there is not as much about the role of the women in the political life of the Empire or about the decision making process that one might have liked from such a well placed witness. And that is the great disappointment of her book, here for the only time we get the voice and opinion of a woman of the Imperial household, only she is not very interested in talking about being a woman in the Imperial household, her father - unlike her younger brother who got to be the next Emperor - is presented as an exemplary figure so she also keeps us at arms length from the doubts and political infighting behind the decision making.
Still there is nothing else quite like it.
There seem to be constant hordes of enemies, external and internal (whack a mole rebellions), while every soldier to fight in their support needs to scrapped from the bottom of the barrel.
Her narrative is indispensable for those interested in the 1st crusade and is ironically, considering her lack of love for the westerners, the most widely available primary source. Comena does have the irritating habit of referring to western Europeans as Kelts (and her description of them is strongly reminiscent of earlier Roman and Greek descriptions of the celts), Egyptians as Babylonians and Hagarines for Muslims it was good style apparently to be as archaic, if not as obscure as possible in your nomenclature for the educated writer. At that same time this implies that nothing has ever changed the Roman Empire still does battle with the Celts and the Babylonians just as it did a thousand years (and more!) earlier. Everything is eternal and unchanging the narrative implies, thus gracefully covering over the fact that the Commene family had only recently seized the Imperial throne through marriage and their right to rule was not universally taken seriously (hence the rebellions).
There are some insights and stories - like the one of her mother in labour - that presumably a man of the household would not have access to, but because of the focus on her father and on him as a successful and able politician there is not as much about the role of the women in the political life of the Empire or about the decision making process that one might have liked from such a well placed witness. And that is the great disappointment of her book, here for the only time we get the voice and opinion of a woman of the Imperial household, only she is not very interested in talking about being a woman in the Imperial household, her father - unlike her younger brother who got to be the next Emperor - is presented as an exemplary figure so she also keeps us at arms length from the doubts and political infighting behind the decision making.
Still there is nothing else quite like it.
March 6, 2014
Edward Gibbons of 'The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'fame, has left a long lasting slander upon the Eastern Roman,or Byzantine, Empire. So long lasting was it that it permeated the writings of other historians,popular fiction writers, even a couple of Italian 'blood & sandal" movies of the early sixties. Gibbons, I believe, suffered from an elitism that all good things came from the pagan Romans. That Eastern religion was a part of their downfall. Charles Martel's victory over a Moslem invasion force at Tours, in the Eighth Century saved Western Europe. Cough! A little town called Constantinople broke two massive invasions that most definitely would have changed history, and not to the liking of Gibbons, or Hansen, for that matter. The men and women who both fought for,and,many a time,each other for the throne of this 'ghost of Rome' were some fascinating folk.
Alexius I Comnenus is a perfect example. His daughter Anna wrote his biography. It is a tale of an reeling empire. One beset by aggressive Seljuk Turks who defeated a former emperor in 1076 at Manzikert in what is now Armenia,in the east, and some western adventurer knights, led by the Normans, descendants of the Vikings, who had swept up Sicily,parts of southern Italy, and looked on the remnants Of the Empire like raw meat to a wolf. Okay got that out. Alexius, to the surprise of many, would hold the Empire together. Though unable to drive the Turks completely away from its former territory, it would be nearly four hundred years before Byzantium died. He would see off the Normans. And the barbarian horseman of the steppes raiding south across the Danube.
Anna loved and admired her father, though she wished he had chosen her and her husband as successors, instead of her brother who she tried to usurp. Family affairs, the Empire is full of such stories. Alexius also steered the First Crusade through his realm. Anna gives an excellent description of their leaders, in particular, the mighty Norman, Bohemund. I can picture the young Anna looking from the women's nook at the mailed badass from the semi civilized West and going "Damn! He's Fine!" Excuse me. Harold Lamb in his history of the First Crusade "Iron Men and Saints" gives a vivid description of the Basileus Alexius and his encounter with the descendants of the Franks, Goths,Burgundians, Danes, and Lombards. The Alexiad, the writing of Ammianus Marcellinus, and Tacitus will give you three different views of the Roman Empire at three different stages in its life.
Alexius I Comnenus is a perfect example. His daughter Anna wrote his biography. It is a tale of an reeling empire. One beset by aggressive Seljuk Turks who defeated a former emperor in 1076 at Manzikert in what is now Armenia,in the east, and some western adventurer knights, led by the Normans, descendants of the Vikings, who had swept up Sicily,parts of southern Italy, and looked on the remnants Of the Empire like raw meat to a wolf. Okay got that out. Alexius, to the surprise of many, would hold the Empire together. Though unable to drive the Turks completely away from its former territory, it would be nearly four hundred years before Byzantium died. He would see off the Normans. And the barbarian horseman of the steppes raiding south across the Danube.
Anna loved and admired her father, though she wished he had chosen her and her husband as successors, instead of her brother who she tried to usurp. Family affairs, the Empire is full of such stories. Alexius also steered the First Crusade through his realm. Anna gives an excellent description of their leaders, in particular, the mighty Norman, Bohemund. I can picture the young Anna looking from the women's nook at the mailed badass from the semi civilized West and going "Damn! He's Fine!" Excuse me. Harold Lamb in his history of the First Crusade "Iron Men and Saints" gives a vivid description of the Basileus Alexius and his encounter with the descendants of the Franks, Goths,Burgundians, Danes, and Lombards. The Alexiad, the writing of Ammianus Marcellinus, and Tacitus will give you three different views of the Roman Empire at three different stages in its life.
May 28, 2019
Anyone wishing to have more than an introductory knowledge of either the Crusades or Byzantium ought to read Anna Comnena's account known as the "Alexiad" of the reign her father from 1081 to 1118 AD on the Eastern Roman Empire. It is in effect the foundation document upon which all subsequent historians have relied for either the First Crusade or for the history of Byzantium. One ought to read "The Alexiad" on the heels of a work such as Julius Norwich's "Byzantium: The Decline and Fall" or Christopher Tyerman's "God's War: A New History of the Crusades".
It must be understood that history for the pre-modern era is essentially literary criticism. The historian of the modern era bases his or her account on archival sources. The historian of antiquity or the middle ages a consults a handful of contemporary chronicles and then presents his or her interpretation. Thus after reading the work of a modern historian on the era, the logical thing to do is to go to the horse's mouth and read Comnena's "Alexiad". She is certainly as intelligent as any modern historian. Moreover, in the E.R.A. Sewter translation of Penguin, she also writes as well. According to Wikipedia, Comnena wrote in a highly artificial "Attic" Greek of the fifth century B.C. which is quite ghastly, but Sewter's text is clear and cogent.
Possibly due to her unnatural language or the fact that Comnena was a woman, many modern historians have sneered at her. All have, however, accepted her thesis that the Comnenian Dynasty of Byzantium (a.k.a. Istanbul, a.k.a. Constantinople) was the best hope for a Christian regime that might have survived in the region past the end of the middle ages. The Crusaders who came with the nominal purpose of supporting Christianity in the Holy Lands were in the view of Comnena simply a group of adventurers who were violent, erratic and irresponsible. Worse they were treacherous. Alexius I very clearly understood that if the Crusaders who arrived in his country were unable to establish a kingdom by taking territory from the Muslim Arabs in the Holy Land they were prepared to seize his kingdom as a consolation prize. The fact that in the Fourth Crusade (1202 to 1204), the Crusaders did in fact depose the successor of Alexius and establish a Latin Kingdom in Byzantium more than vindicates Alexius I for distrusting the Crusaders that he met in his life time.
"The Alexiad" is a true treasure trove. It offers an excellent portrait of Comnenian dynasty and the politics of the region. The military campaigns are described with admirable detail. There are also interesting comments on the Bogomil heresy and the ethnic composition of the region.
"The Alexiad" is not however for someone unfamiliar with the era. In fact for the contemporary reader it is often confusing. Comnena refers to Byzantine Greeks as Romans while the Crusaders predominantly from France and England are called alternatively Franks, Latins and Barbarians. Nonetheless, for the reader with the appropriate background, this is a richly rewarding work.
It must be understood that history for the pre-modern era is essentially literary criticism. The historian of the modern era bases his or her account on archival sources. The historian of antiquity or the middle ages a consults a handful of contemporary chronicles and then presents his or her interpretation. Thus after reading the work of a modern historian on the era, the logical thing to do is to go to the horse's mouth and read Comnena's "Alexiad". She is certainly as intelligent as any modern historian. Moreover, in the E.R.A. Sewter translation of Penguin, she also writes as well. According to Wikipedia, Comnena wrote in a highly artificial "Attic" Greek of the fifth century B.C. which is quite ghastly, but Sewter's text is clear and cogent.
Possibly due to her unnatural language or the fact that Comnena was a woman, many modern historians have sneered at her. All have, however, accepted her thesis that the Comnenian Dynasty of Byzantium (a.k.a. Istanbul, a.k.a. Constantinople) was the best hope for a Christian regime that might have survived in the region past the end of the middle ages. The Crusaders who came with the nominal purpose of supporting Christianity in the Holy Lands were in the view of Comnena simply a group of adventurers who were violent, erratic and irresponsible. Worse they were treacherous. Alexius I very clearly understood that if the Crusaders who arrived in his country were unable to establish a kingdom by taking territory from the Muslim Arabs in the Holy Land they were prepared to seize his kingdom as a consolation prize. The fact that in the Fourth Crusade (1202 to 1204), the Crusaders did in fact depose the successor of Alexius and establish a Latin Kingdom in Byzantium more than vindicates Alexius I for distrusting the Crusaders that he met in his life time.
"The Alexiad" is a true treasure trove. It offers an excellent portrait of Comnenian dynasty and the politics of the region. The military campaigns are described with admirable detail. There are also interesting comments on the Bogomil heresy and the ethnic composition of the region.
"The Alexiad" is not however for someone unfamiliar with the era. In fact for the contemporary reader it is often confusing. Comnena refers to Byzantine Greeks as Romans while the Crusaders predominantly from France and England are called alternatively Franks, Latins and Barbarians. Nonetheless, for the reader with the appropriate background, this is a richly rewarding work.
September 2, 2015
Always feels a bit strange writing a review for something written almost a thousand years ago. I can't imagine Anna Comnena herself would be very amused by the idea of any old pleb on social media being able to pass comment upon her history. It goes without saying that the Alexiad has tremendous value as a piece of source material but I guess the whole point of reviews on Goodreads is to comment on the book's entertainment value for the general reader rather than its usefulness for the historian. So here goes.
The nice thing about the Alexiad is that the personality of its writer comes through and we get a real impression of the Byzantine princess who wrote this account of her father's reign. Her pride and admiration for her father's achievements are palpable and despite her endless protestations that she writes nothing but the unvarnished truth, she is unable to resist the urge to praise him to the heavens. As such as a biography it has its limitations due to her extreme bias. Her bitterness at her own fate; confined to a nunnery at her brother's hands is also conveyed in spades. Anna delights in high-flown language and tries to fit in a Homeric phrase as often as possible. Clearly she loved her classics and spent more time reading those than the bible, since amusingly, whenever she quotes the scriptures, she inevitably gets it wrong!
The chapters covering the early part of Alexius' reign would clearly have been based on accounts set down before Anna was born and during her childhood and these are in places confused to the point that they are almost impossible to follow, particularly her accounts of military campaigns. As it goes on however into the remit of her own experience, it gets better and the famous accounts of the First Crusaders and the wars against the wily Normans are very readable and entertaining.
All in all its a worthwhile read whether you're a Byzantium or crusading fan and across the centuries you can feel that you've got to know the slightly batty, dramatic, nostalgic and fiercely loyal to her father's memory; Anna Comnena.
The nice thing about the Alexiad is that the personality of its writer comes through and we get a real impression of the Byzantine princess who wrote this account of her father's reign. Her pride and admiration for her father's achievements are palpable and despite her endless protestations that she writes nothing but the unvarnished truth, she is unable to resist the urge to praise him to the heavens. As such as a biography it has its limitations due to her extreme bias. Her bitterness at her own fate; confined to a nunnery at her brother's hands is also conveyed in spades. Anna delights in high-flown language and tries to fit in a Homeric phrase as often as possible. Clearly she loved her classics and spent more time reading those than the bible, since amusingly, whenever she quotes the scriptures, she inevitably gets it wrong!
The chapters covering the early part of Alexius' reign would clearly have been based on accounts set down before Anna was born and during her childhood and these are in places confused to the point that they are almost impossible to follow, particularly her accounts of military campaigns. As it goes on however into the remit of her own experience, it gets better and the famous accounts of the First Crusaders and the wars against the wily Normans are very readable and entertaining.
All in all its a worthwhile read whether you're a Byzantium or crusading fan and across the centuries you can feel that you've got to know the slightly batty, dramatic, nostalgic and fiercely loyal to her father's memory; Anna Comnena.
September 4, 2007
I enjoyed the undercurrent of gleeful malice and all of the lurid eye-gouging, but I didn't understand why everyone seemed to have the same name, why they had all married each other's cousins, and why they all wanted to kill each other. The footnotes assumed I'd need help figuring out who the Gorgon was, and other references to Greek mythology, but provided no assistance with any of the Byzantine names, titles, dates, or battles. Not even a time line. I suppose that if I had known anything whatsoever about Byzantine history, I may have enjoyed the book more. As it was, all I learned was that they were really, really into gouging out eyes.
April 27, 2023
Un de los textos clásicos de la literatura bizantina, muy bien escrito y traducido (aunque, evidentemente puede resultar un tanto arcaico para el lector actual) No solo tiene valores literarios, si no que, además, es una importante referencia sobre la vida del emperador Alejo I (Aunque tiene claras omisiones interesadas, no en vano, Anna jugó muy fuerte en la política imperial en su momento y perdió)
August 1, 2022
The history of Constantinople and Eastern Roman Empire stretches from approximately 330AD to it's final fall in 1261 AD. With a long list of emperors, some strong, some weak and some more corrupt that we can imagine even in this day and with many ups and downs throughout it's nearly 1000 year history, that brought the enemy to the very walls of the city on more than one occasion, this book centers around the Emperor Alexis as told by his daughter, who at one time while growing up as a little girl born into the purple, actually thought she might come to rule the empire herself, and did everything she could in childhood and beyond to prepare herself to that eventually, (that's no actually in the book, I got that I believe from Susan Wise Bauer's "The History of the Medieval World) Unfortunately that day never came, but her ambitions never ceased and she discusses the fall out at the rather sad ending of her book.
As told by Anna Komnene, her father's reign is one of justice and virtue as a true hero and warrior fighting continuously against countless enemies with both stratagem and brawn and other contemporary sources back her up to a large degree. The book is simply a fabulous read of the life and times of late 10th and early 11th Century Byzantine and encompasses much of the history and daily life, before the start of Crusades and moves you along through the first few giving first hand accounts of many of characters of the time both the good ones and bad along with their various exploits, all given through Anna's point of view.
Highly recommended.
As told by Anna Komnene, her father's reign is one of justice and virtue as a true hero and warrior fighting continuously against countless enemies with both stratagem and brawn and other contemporary sources back her up to a large degree. The book is simply a fabulous read of the life and times of late 10th and early 11th Century Byzantine and encompasses much of the history and daily life, before the start of Crusades and moves you along through the first few giving first hand accounts of many of characters of the time both the good ones and bad along with their various exploits, all given through Anna's point of view.
Highly recommended.
November 5, 2017
What would Byzantine history be like if it was written by a sour and snippily self-conscious Victorian governess? Thanks to Anna Comnena, we don't have to wonder.
Full review now available on Vintage Novels
Full review now available on Vintage Novels
Read
October 6, 2024A classicist acquaintance of mine once observed that if you think of the Byzantine Empire as simply a continuation of the Roman Empire, rather than as its successor or replacement, then that means that the Roman Empire was still in existence during the lifetime of Geoffrey Chaucer. Reading the Alexiad did rather remind me of that observation: Commena refers to her father as Caesar throughout and although the term Byzantine is used, she mostly does refer to the Byzantines as Romans (with Latins used to refer to some of the occupants of Italy). That does mean that the text does introduce an odd mixture of ancient and classical phrasings, not least where the Roman Empire is in conflict with the Normans.
In practice, a lot of the Alexiad does remind me of some of the early histories of Rome, as the likes of Livy recorded an early Republic that was under almost constant threat before. In the case of Byzantium, its geography must have placed it under a considerable disadvantage, given that it was essentially caught in a pincer movement between Turks to the South and Scythians to the North (and indeed Norman invasions from Italy). Alexius was able to successfully safeguard the Byzantine Empire at this point, partly through an alliance with the Venetian Republic, but was only to last for a few more hundred years afterwards. One other aspect that leaps out is the extent to which the Byzantines saw heresy as a threat, with the book recording multiple rounds of persecution against different types of cult figures, ending with Manicheanism. In this case, this is a little more like the extent to which the Roman Empire had seen Christianity as a threat rather than the original Republic.
In practice, a lot of the Alexiad does remind me of some of the early histories of Rome, as the likes of Livy recorded an early Republic that was under almost constant threat before. In the case of Byzantium, its geography must have placed it under a considerable disadvantage, given that it was essentially caught in a pincer movement between Turks to the South and Scythians to the North (and indeed Norman invasions from Italy). Alexius was able to successfully safeguard the Byzantine Empire at this point, partly through an alliance with the Venetian Republic, but was only to last for a few more hundred years afterwards. One other aspect that leaps out is the extent to which the Byzantines saw heresy as a threat, with the book recording multiple rounds of persecution against different types of cult figures, ending with Manicheanism. In this case, this is a little more like the extent to which the Roman Empire had seen Christianity as a threat rather than the original Republic.
July 11, 2023
Last year I assigned myself a warrior study. This year the warrior study continues despite.my assigning myself other studies. All I do is follow my friends around GR and they keep leading me to warrior study. Of course I let them. Of course I follow them. They are good friends to follow into books.
Here in Alexiad, I find the the source of the Crusades. Much happens as the turmoil in Byzantine Empire is overrun by the Crusaders who would over run the Empire, carry away loot, carry the loot back to Europe, put up the loot for sale. What happens beyond the story that Anna Comnena tells is this: As Western Europeans watched the Byzantine Empire struggled to settle on a emperor educated both in statecraft and warcraft, the Western Europeans took opportunity to start looting what we call the Middle East, to take that loot back to the administrative cities of Western Europe, to change cities into the modern setup where the center of a city is no longer religious or administrative, but now is economic.
Even if Anna Comment understood the history she was living as anything other than waves of battle, she understood the religious, administrative, and battlefield experiences of her time and place as she was a daughter to her emperor-father Alexius.
Not only did Anna write a historical account, she also wrote a poetical account, more particularly an epic account if her father's reign as a warrior-emperor. In his book This Craft of Verse, Jorge Luis Borges describes something s that epics are and how epics are titled. Sometimes writer/creators of epics add some version of "-iad" to the of a name of the person or place: The illiad, the Aeneid, and The Alexiad.
Truly Epic History.
Here in Alexiad, I find the the source of the Crusades. Much happens as the turmoil in Byzantine Empire is overrun by the Crusaders who would over run the Empire, carry away loot, carry the loot back to Europe, put up the loot for sale. What happens beyond the story that Anna Comnena tells is this: As Western Europeans watched the Byzantine Empire struggled to settle on a emperor educated both in statecraft and warcraft, the Western Europeans took opportunity to start looting what we call the Middle East, to take that loot back to the administrative cities of Western Europe, to change cities into the modern setup where the center of a city is no longer religious or administrative, but now is economic.
Even if Anna Comment understood the history she was living as anything other than waves of battle, she understood the religious, administrative, and battlefield experiences of her time and place as she was a daughter to her emperor-father Alexius.
Not only did Anna write a historical account, she also wrote a poetical account, more particularly an epic account if her father's reign as a warrior-emperor. In his book This Craft of Verse, Jorge Luis Borges describes something s that epics are and how epics are titled. Sometimes writer/creators of epics add some version of "-iad" to the of a name of the person or place: The illiad, the Aeneid, and The Alexiad.
Truly Epic History.
November 6, 2022
This is a re-read for me and one of the several books which got me into Byzantine history in the first place. But I hadn't read it in years, so I thought it might be fun to do so. It was harder going that I remembered, but worthwhile.
Anna Comnena is sometimes a difficult historian to work through. That is, her historical work is generally quite good. Her chronology can be a bit wonky, but that is true of a lot of ancient and mediaeval historians. And there are passages of truly insightful historical and character study which take one's breath away. But interspersed are passages of skin-creeping panegyric of her father that really can put one off. Now, I do understand that she had several axes to grind, most of them related to court politics, so one has to factor that in. But that can be off putting.
Still, she still deserves her place as one of the best historians in the Byzantine Empire, so well worth reading.
Anna Comnena is sometimes a difficult historian to work through. That is, her historical work is generally quite good. Her chronology can be a bit wonky, but that is true of a lot of ancient and mediaeval historians. And there are passages of truly insightful historical and character study which take one's breath away. But interspersed are passages of skin-creeping panegyric of her father that really can put one off. Now, I do understand that she had several axes to grind, most of them related to court politics, so one has to factor that in. But that can be off putting.
Still, she still deserves her place as one of the best historians in the Byzantine Empire, so well worth reading.
August 7, 2015
I fell in love with Turks here, and possibly with history. I came to this young, a lucky chance.
October 24, 2022
I'll say it now, I completely underestimated this book. Most old texts are fairly short (on the account of, ya know, the typewriter and electrical light not having been invented yet) so I kind of assumed it would be similar to, idk, the Gilgamesh Epos - not exactly easy to read but manageable in a short while.
Boi was I wrong. The Alexiad recounts the life of Emperor Alexius I Komnenos and all the battles, unrests, riots and intrigues that came with being emperor at arguably one of the worst times you could possibly pick. There's Normans and Latins fucking up shit in the west (the Byzantines called themselves 'Romans', despite their empire at the time spanning across, Greece and…yeah that's it), Turks invading from the east, Scyths raiding the north, crusaders, evil popes, traitors, oath breakers, heretics…the whole nine yards. I don't think that man had a calm day through the entirety of his 37 year reign.
It is quite an epic tale and it's utterly fascinating. Even more so, because Anna is not necessarily a reliable narrator. She keeps saying that she is impartial and not favouring any side in her chronicles, but she's obviously idolising her father on many occasions. You can hear her voice clearly through the text and what she thought about all these invading forces that her father was forced to fend off (Normans - greedy as hell, Turks - arrogant, everyone else - barbarians). So despite her words, this is not some 100% accurate account of history, but it is so very human. There's one little passage towards the end, where she writes that her arm is tired from holding the quill and that the candles have to be lit soon and I just felt such a connection to this woman who lived like 900 years ago?
Like, the mere thought that she wrote all that 9 centuries before our time and we can read it today is completely wild to me. And I wonder what her world looked like. She'll never know that some of her cities will fall to ruin and some will become tourist hot spots where people sell cheap souvenirs made in China. She'll never know that clean, running water will be widely accessible in most of Europe, that we now carry little devices in our pockets that give us all the knowledge we could ever ask for (for better or worse), that atheists roam around freely and she'll never know that modern medicine could have possibly saved her father's life.
Anyway, back to the book. As I said, Anna's view is very biased towards her father and I don't believe he actually was the saint she made him out to be. But it still seems like he was a very lenient emperor. He constantly forgives those who wronged him, sues for peace even when dealing with 'barbarians' who broke their oath to him, showers even adversaries with gifts and let's those live who tried to assassinate him (to be fair, he did gouge their eyes out - that seems to have been a big thing back then). And in a way it's inspiring (not the eye gouging, obviously). It's inspiring to see how he got his ass kicked by the Normans and Scythes and Turks, yet never once gave up and in the end somehow came out on top. And it puts things into perspective, too. So many people were massacred and robbed in these wars and raids. Have your house and belongings been recently plundered by a host of angry Cumans? No? Then I dare say we're living a pretty good life.
Another thing that was really interesting were the women Anna mentions in the book. Let me go on a bit of a tangent here (as if that review wasn't already long enough): I used to watch a lot of videos by these 'medieval warfare experts' (aka dudes who practice HEMA and think that gives them a history degree) and one of their main talking points was 'historical accuracy' in media. According to most of them, women back then only existed as wives, mother and nuns and had no agency of their own and any deviation from that is pandering to the audience. They were pieces of furniture to be traded around and were generally regarded as weak and useless. And while that was certainly the case to an extent, it's not the whole truth. The women Anna writes about were cunning, fierce and political. There's her grandmother Anna Dalassena, who basically ran the entire empire while Alexius was out fighting and Anna keeps praising her ingenuity and prowess. Sickelgaita, the wife of Robert Guiscard went to war with him, 'cut an imposing figure when clad in armor' and apparently once charged at her own men with a spear to stop them from running away. She mentions a Roman soldier being taken prisoner by a Scythian warrior woman, a female philosopher, two queens who fought the Persians (one of them allegedly cutting off Cyrus' head and putting it in a bag filled with human blood because he boasted that he'd have his fill of blood - honestly that's metal as fuck), a Latin governor/general who held off their forces in Italy,…
Yes, history is still at large a sausage fest, but completely ignoring women's role in ancient warfare is just doing everyone a disservice.
So idk, shove your 'women weak arms small brains can't hold spear' to where the sun doesn't shine.
Alright, I think I'll have to stop here, but I'll leave you with a quote that is still painfully relevant today:
"After all, it is the mark of a bad general, when all is peaceful, purposely to provoke his neighbours to war - for peace is the end of all wars. Invariably to prefer war instead of peace, always to disregard the good end, is typical of foolish commanders and foolish political leaders, the mark of men who work for the destruction of their own state."
Boi was I wrong. The Alexiad recounts the life of Emperor Alexius I Komnenos and all the battles, unrests, riots and intrigues that came with being emperor at arguably one of the worst times you could possibly pick. There's Normans and Latins fucking up shit in the west (the Byzantines called themselves 'Romans', despite their empire at the time spanning across, Greece and…yeah that's it), Turks invading from the east, Scyths raiding the north, crusaders, evil popes, traitors, oath breakers, heretics…the whole nine yards. I don't think that man had a calm day through the entirety of his 37 year reign.
It is quite an epic tale and it's utterly fascinating. Even more so, because Anna is not necessarily a reliable narrator. She keeps saying that she is impartial and not favouring any side in her chronicles, but she's obviously idolising her father on many occasions. You can hear her voice clearly through the text and what she thought about all these invading forces that her father was forced to fend off (Normans - greedy as hell, Turks - arrogant, everyone else - barbarians). So despite her words, this is not some 100% accurate account of history, but it is so very human. There's one little passage towards the end, where she writes that her arm is tired from holding the quill and that the candles have to be lit soon and I just felt such a connection to this woman who lived like 900 years ago?
Like, the mere thought that she wrote all that 9 centuries before our time and we can read it today is completely wild to me. And I wonder what her world looked like. She'll never know that some of her cities will fall to ruin and some will become tourist hot spots where people sell cheap souvenirs made in China. She'll never know that clean, running water will be widely accessible in most of Europe, that we now carry little devices in our pockets that give us all the knowledge we could ever ask for (for better or worse), that atheists roam around freely and she'll never know that modern medicine could have possibly saved her father's life.
Anyway, back to the book. As I said, Anna's view is very biased towards her father and I don't believe he actually was the saint she made him out to be. But it still seems like he was a very lenient emperor. He constantly forgives those who wronged him, sues for peace even when dealing with 'barbarians' who broke their oath to him, showers even adversaries with gifts and let's those live who tried to assassinate him (to be fair, he did gouge their eyes out - that seems to have been a big thing back then). And in a way it's inspiring (not the eye gouging, obviously). It's inspiring to see how he got his ass kicked by the Normans and Scythes and Turks, yet never once gave up and in the end somehow came out on top. And it puts things into perspective, too. So many people were massacred and robbed in these wars and raids. Have your house and belongings been recently plundered by a host of angry Cumans? No? Then I dare say we're living a pretty good life.
Another thing that was really interesting were the women Anna mentions in the book. Let me go on a bit of a tangent here (as if that review wasn't already long enough): I used to watch a lot of videos by these 'medieval warfare experts' (aka dudes who practice HEMA and think that gives them a history degree) and one of their main talking points was 'historical accuracy' in media. According to most of them, women back then only existed as wives, mother and nuns and had no agency of their own and any deviation from that is pandering to the audience. They were pieces of furniture to be traded around and were generally regarded as weak and useless. And while that was certainly the case to an extent, it's not the whole truth. The women Anna writes about were cunning, fierce and political. There's her grandmother Anna Dalassena, who basically ran the entire empire while Alexius was out fighting and Anna keeps praising her ingenuity and prowess. Sickelgaita, the wife of Robert Guiscard went to war with him, 'cut an imposing figure when clad in armor' and apparently once charged at her own men with a spear to stop them from running away. She mentions a Roman soldier being taken prisoner by a Scythian warrior woman, a female philosopher, two queens who fought the Persians (one of them allegedly cutting off Cyrus' head and putting it in a bag filled with human blood because he boasted that he'd have his fill of blood - honestly that's metal as fuck), a Latin governor/general who held off their forces in Italy,…
Yes, history is still at large a sausage fest, but completely ignoring women's role in ancient warfare is just doing everyone a disservice.
So idk, shove your 'women weak arms small brains can't hold spear' to where the sun doesn't shine.
Alright, I think I'll have to stop here, but I'll leave you with a quote that is still painfully relevant today:
"After all, it is the mark of a bad general, when all is peaceful, purposely to provoke his neighbours to war - for peace is the end of all wars. Invariably to prefer war instead of peace, always to disregard the good end, is typical of foolish commanders and foolish political leaders, the mark of men who work for the destruction of their own state."
June 3, 2025
So the Alexiad. Ridiculously popular, for both its author and its subject.
Anna komnene is the first woman historian on record, and ambitious women in history have always made their eras so much more interesting (imagine China without empress Wu or the Delhi sultanate without Razia Sultana). She doesn’t shy away from very frequent boasting either and is extremely proud of having “perfected her study of Greek to the highest pitch” (sic). Also a trained physician, Anna was NOT happy about her brother inheriting the throne from her father (Alexios Komnenos, the subject of this work), and planned a coup against him. Said coup failed, and Anna was consequently imprisoned for life. In her exile, she decided to write the Alexiad, because ain’t no way Anna Komnene was going to die unknown to history.
The Alexiad is interesting for sure. This is to say nothing of its extreme historical importance as a primary source for much of the most important events of an era that practically defined the rest of the Middle Ages in Eastern Europe and west Asia. It purports to be a history, but it actually is not (and if Anna was honest about this, and didn’t behave like a Goebbels level propagandist, I might have given her a more positive review). What it is, is a mix of history and epic in the Greek tradition. There’s definitely a pretty strong throwback to homer going on.
The subject of the book is Alexios Komnenos. An absolutely awe inspiring figure, beset on all sides but unstoppable, Komnenos was a force of nature. After the battle of Manzikert in 1071, the Byzantine empire had been decisively defeated by the Turks, and had lost practically all of Asia to them. Alexios was a young general shortly afterwards, and after repeatedly proving himself on the battlefield in the many revolts and incursions after this era, he took the throne in a coup himself. Subsequently, the man beat back the Scythians in the north, the cumans, Robert gusicard and the normans in the west, and the Turks in the east, all while also fighting off internal rebellions. The Komnenian restoration which continued for two generations after him is among the most interesting phases of Byzantine history and Christianity’s last stand in the east.
Anna gives us vivid deets about how her dad’s reign went down, and frequently very colourful descriptions. She’s also a great source for the crusades and other important historical events of the era.
Now that I have sufficiently praised both Anna and her dad, it’s time for the criticisms. And there are a few.
Firstly, this bish needs to stop lying stat. On multiple occasions, she talks about how she is “neutral” in her history and won’t let her love of her dad affect her neutrality. And then she proceeds to write about how he was the greatest man who ever lived, the very sun shone out his asshole, how he could do no wrong and how the same actions were clever and noble when done by him, and cunning and evil when done by someone else. Now she is largely reliable in how events unfolded, but they are heavily tinged by her extremely visible bias.
The Muslims suck, the franks suck, the latins suck, greeks4eva praise jayzus
Second, and I guess this is a more generic criticism of her era, it sucks when I have to read 15 sentences to get information that should ideally be contained in one. Bad writing.
Third, ffs how much can she repeat herself. We get it, Ms “Alexius, my father”. You don’t have to keep reminding us. Her narrative also rambles like mad. Should have done less cocaine before writing.
So in conclusion, I dunno man, depending on my mood, I could give this anything from 1 to 5 stars.
yeah, so was going through the alexiad again, and holy shit does she want to fuck guiscard or what? I don't think Anna realised that her future readers probably don't need to know how bad she wants to hatefuck the 10/10 hunk coming for her dad's throne.
Anna komnene is the first woman historian on record, and ambitious women in history have always made their eras so much more interesting (imagine China without empress Wu or the Delhi sultanate without Razia Sultana). She doesn’t shy away from very frequent boasting either and is extremely proud of having “perfected her study of Greek to the highest pitch” (sic). Also a trained physician, Anna was NOT happy about her brother inheriting the throne from her father (Alexios Komnenos, the subject of this work), and planned a coup against him. Said coup failed, and Anna was consequently imprisoned for life. In her exile, she decided to write the Alexiad, because ain’t no way Anna Komnene was going to die unknown to history.
The Alexiad is interesting for sure. This is to say nothing of its extreme historical importance as a primary source for much of the most important events of an era that practically defined the rest of the Middle Ages in Eastern Europe and west Asia. It purports to be a history, but it actually is not (and if Anna was honest about this, and didn’t behave like a Goebbels level propagandist, I might have given her a more positive review). What it is, is a mix of history and epic in the Greek tradition. There’s definitely a pretty strong throwback to homer going on.
The subject of the book is Alexios Komnenos. An absolutely awe inspiring figure, beset on all sides but unstoppable, Komnenos was a force of nature. After the battle of Manzikert in 1071, the Byzantine empire had been decisively defeated by the Turks, and had lost practically all of Asia to them. Alexios was a young general shortly afterwards, and after repeatedly proving himself on the battlefield in the many revolts and incursions after this era, he took the throne in a coup himself. Subsequently, the man beat back the Scythians in the north, the cumans, Robert gusicard and the normans in the west, and the Turks in the east, all while also fighting off internal rebellions. The Komnenian restoration which continued for two generations after him is among the most interesting phases of Byzantine history and Christianity’s last stand in the east.
Anna gives us vivid deets about how her dad’s reign went down, and frequently very colourful descriptions. She’s also a great source for the crusades and other important historical events of the era.
Now that I have sufficiently praised both Anna and her dad, it’s time for the criticisms. And there are a few.
Firstly, this bish needs to stop lying stat. On multiple occasions, she talks about how she is “neutral” in her history and won’t let her love of her dad affect her neutrality. And then she proceeds to write about how he was the greatest man who ever lived, the very sun shone out his asshole, how he could do no wrong and how the same actions were clever and noble when done by him, and cunning and evil when done by someone else. Now she is largely reliable in how events unfolded, but they are heavily tinged by her extremely visible bias.
The Muslims suck, the franks suck, the latins suck, greeks4eva praise jayzus
Second, and I guess this is a more generic criticism of her era, it sucks when I have to read 15 sentences to get information that should ideally be contained in one. Bad writing.
Third, ffs how much can she repeat herself. We get it, Ms “Alexius, my father”. You don’t have to keep reminding us. Her narrative also rambles like mad. Should have done less cocaine before writing.
So in conclusion, I dunno man, depending on my mood, I could give this anything from 1 to 5 stars.
yeah, so was going through the alexiad again, and holy shit does she want to fuck guiscard or what? I don't think Anna realised that her future readers probably don't need to know how bad she wants to hatefuck the 10/10 hunk coming for her dad's throne.
February 22, 2025
There is really only one way to write about battles: list the forces, describe the commanders and their intentions, follow the action, throw in some anecdotes and say who won. My interest in this book is not in the events but in the narration. How did a Byzantine princess think and speak?
The first surprise is the almost total absence of religious references. Was the leader strong in the Lord? Divinely guided? Did he lead a life of patient humility? Did he spend the evening before the battle in penitence and prayer? Did he meet any saints, touch any relics or seek the blessing of the Church? Did God grant victory? Did the leader celebrate his victory in a cathedral? Did he, in pious gratitude, found a monastery and a hospital? Is there a moral lesson to be learned? Anna doesn't mention anything like that. She is not writing in the service of God. It is difficult to imagine a Western monk or a Muslim jurist writing in such a secular fashion.
Anna is a very focused writer, with none of the diversions that makes Herodotus so engaging. She has a great deal of material to cover, and wastes no time on side quests. She doesn't boo when Alexis loses or cheer when he wins.
What about the female eye, the female voice? Anna is a little less arrogant than a male author, but she is purple-born. This is history in the service of family, after all. But there is nothing here that a man couldn't have written.
The first surprise is the almost total absence of religious references. Was the leader strong in the Lord? Divinely guided? Did he lead a life of patient humility? Did he spend the evening before the battle in penitence and prayer? Did he meet any saints, touch any relics or seek the blessing of the Church? Did God grant victory? Did the leader celebrate his victory in a cathedral? Did he, in pious gratitude, found a monastery and a hospital? Is there a moral lesson to be learned? Anna doesn't mention anything like that. She is not writing in the service of God. It is difficult to imagine a Western monk or a Muslim jurist writing in such a secular fashion.
Anna is a very focused writer, with none of the diversions that makes Herodotus so engaging. She has a great deal of material to cover, and wastes no time on side quests. She doesn't boo when Alexis loses or cheer when he wins.
What about the female eye, the female voice? Anna is a little less arrogant than a male author, but she is purple-born. This is history in the service of family, after all. But there is nothing here that a man couldn't have written.
November 30, 2025
(DNF) Amazing book about a time period (11th century Byzantium) that was previously shrouded in oblivion to me. I love finding primary sources like this, and the occasional little details where Anna digresses to personal musings are the best part. I wish she'd done more of that instead of trying to be like other good historians and just state the political facts. It's obviously a valuable work.
I'm shelving it at page 244 because it's too exhausting right now to be immersed for 200 more pages in the intense warfare that was apparently necessary for the survival of an Eastern Roman Emperor attacked by invaders on every side. I'm impressed by Alexios' diligence, sagacity, and military capacity, to keep his empire safe from marauders, but, wow, as a tired mama, I need reading time to be less stressful. While reading this to accompany our kids' history studies, we've moved several centuries beyond already, so knowing the value of this resource on my shelf, I'm squelching completionist instincts to move on to other good books.
I'm shelving it at page 244 because it's too exhausting right now to be immersed for 200 more pages in the intense warfare that was apparently necessary for the survival of an Eastern Roman Emperor attacked by invaders on every side. I'm impressed by Alexios' diligence, sagacity, and military capacity, to keep his empire safe from marauders, but, wow, as a tired mama, I need reading time to be less stressful. While reading this to accompany our kids' history studies, we've moved several centuries beyond already, so knowing the value of this resource on my shelf, I'm squelching completionist instincts to move on to other good books.
Read
November 27, 2023I'm a fan?
Read
September 14, 2018It’s always fun to read history written by a historical figure, so to speak, and this overview of the life of the Emperor Aleixus, who did a pretty good job of rebuilding the shattered prestige of the Eastern Roman Empire, by his daughter Anna, was…reasonably engaging? Somewhat interesting? It was sort of vaguely for a project I’m working on, otherwise I’m not sure I’d have bothered.
July 18, 2023
"Meanwhile the emperor surrendered to God his holy soul, and my sun went down..."
January 4, 2023
All I can say is wow. As a primary source, the Alexiad is a *must* for anyone interested in Byzantine, 1st Crusade, or 11th century history. It is an incredible resource for understanding themes and procedures of Byzantine rule, military, diplomacy, culture, and economy. Plus, it's full of fascinating believe-it-or-not stories, some of them downright hilarious. Overall, Anna (the author) deals mostly with military history, providing copious details on the seemingly unending battles and sieges which filled her father's reign as Byzantine Emperor. She also recounts details of a number of assassination plots, heresies, and other significant events within the Byzantine court.
There are a few things about the book which I wish were better, all this being said. Most especially, I wish that the translator, Elizabeth Dawes, had included more footnotes and explanations throughout the book (especially for customs which are otherwise unexplained, like the red buskins). As it is, most of the names in the book are simply English renderings of the original Greek. While on the one hand, this preserves the Greek feel of the text, it makes it incredibly difficult sometimes to figure out what, who, or where a term is, since the translated spelling is often so vastly different than any accessible internet sources. Some of these differences in names are subtle (such as Coman vs. Cuman) and some are not (Isangeles vs. Raymond). The English versions of some of these names are included at the term's first introduction, but this often isn't very useful practically for trying to find out more about certain people or places later on.
For those not used to reading primary sources, the text may seem very dry and repetitive at certain points, and it is rather a long work in general. However, I stand by my statement that this book is a must for anyone interested in high medieval history or the Byzantine Empire.
There are a few things about the book which I wish were better, all this being said. Most especially, I wish that the translator, Elizabeth Dawes, had included more footnotes and explanations throughout the book (especially for customs which are otherwise unexplained, like the red buskins). As it is, most of the names in the book are simply English renderings of the original Greek. While on the one hand, this preserves the Greek feel of the text, it makes it incredibly difficult sometimes to figure out what, who, or where a term is, since the translated spelling is often so vastly different than any accessible internet sources. Some of these differences in names are subtle (such as Coman vs. Cuman) and some are not (Isangeles vs. Raymond). The English versions of some of these names are included at the term's first introduction, but this often isn't very useful practically for trying to find out more about certain people or places later on.
For those not used to reading primary sources, the text may seem very dry and repetitive at certain points, and it is rather a long work in general. However, I stand by my statement that this book is a must for anyone interested in high medieval history or the Byzantine Empire.
March 5, 2024
Fascinating character but this book is way too long - I could only concentrate on so many barbarian skirmishes!
July 25, 2017
Anna Komnene wordt beschouwd als de eerste vrouwelijke historicus, maar ze was ook een Byzantijnse prinses en in dit boek vertelt ze over het bewind van haar eigen vader, keizer Alexios I van het Oost-Romeinse rijk. Anna doet dit op zeer eigenzinnige wijze: ze beweert herhaaldelijk de waarheid te willen vertellen en niet aan verheerlijking te willen doen, maar het leuke is dat ze zich slecht aan haar eigen devies houdt en haar vertelling pepert met vooroordelen tegen andere volken ("zo zijn ze, die barbaren", verzucht ze om de zoveel tijd, gevolgd door een gemeenplaats), bewondering voor haar eigen keizer en smakelijke portretten van diens tegenstanders.
Natuurlijk, Anna vertelt keurig dat haar vader klein van stuk was en leed aan Reumatoïde artritis in zijn voeten, maar ze presenteert hem ook als een groot keizer, zelfs als hij bij aanvang van zijn bewind vooral verliezen lijdt.
Want Alexios heeft nogal wat te stellen tijdens zijn bewind: diverse opstanden, moordaanslagen en lastige ketterbewegingen. Bovendien is zijn rijk zo lek als een mandje, en continu moet hij vechten tegen binnenvallende legers: Peçenegen en Komanen (Turkse nomadenvolen, die Anna archaïsch aanduidt met 'Scythen'), Turken van aangrenzende sultanaten en emiraten, plunderende Serviërs en bijzonder lastige Normandiërs en kruisvaarders (door haar consequent 'Kelten' genoemd). Deze laatsten, met name Normandiër Robert Guiscard en zijn zoon Bohemond zorgen voor spannende hoofdstukken. Zo wordt Alexios slechts alleen van de formidabele Guiscard verlost, omdat die plotseling zo maar sterft. De hoofdstukken waarin de kruisvaarders van de eerste kruistocht het land doorkruisen (hoofdstuk X t/m XIV) vormen een hoogtepunt van het boek, vooral omdat Anna niets anders dan een bende op geld beluste schurken in de West-Europeanen ziet. Toch vertelt ook zij smakelijk van hun verovering van Jeruzalem op de Turken.
Een andere heftige passage zit in hoofdstuk VIII, waarin de Peçenegen met hulp van de Komanen volledig worden gedecimeerd, inclusief hun vrouwen en kinderen. Zo'n actie zou tegenwoordig zondermeer genocide heten. Op andere punten toont Alexios zich juist een opvallend wijs, sluw en mild keizer: hij verkiest duidelijk diplomatie boven oorlog, list boven bruut geweld, hij vergeeft zijn tegenstanders vaak en ziet veelal af van veroordeling van ketters en andere onverlaten. Anna heeft het bij aanvang van haar geschiedenis herhaaldelijk over ogen uitsteken, maar onder Alexios lijkt deze straf maar weinig voor te komen. Wel is het duidelijk dat je als gewone man in het Byzantijnse rijk maar al te gemakkelijk prooi kon vallen aan plunderende bendes van allerlei slag.
De mooiste passage van Anna's geschiedenis is het allerlaatste hoofdstuk, waarin ze de dood van haar vader beschrijft. Hier laat ze alle neutraliteit varen en vertelt een emotioneel en ontroerend relaas van Alexios' einde. Zo eindigt de dikke geschiedenis over een heel andere tijd op zijn hoogtepunt.
Natuurlijk, Anna vertelt keurig dat haar vader klein van stuk was en leed aan Reumatoïde artritis in zijn voeten, maar ze presenteert hem ook als een groot keizer, zelfs als hij bij aanvang van zijn bewind vooral verliezen lijdt.
Want Alexios heeft nogal wat te stellen tijdens zijn bewind: diverse opstanden, moordaanslagen en lastige ketterbewegingen. Bovendien is zijn rijk zo lek als een mandje, en continu moet hij vechten tegen binnenvallende legers: Peçenegen en Komanen (Turkse nomadenvolen, die Anna archaïsch aanduidt met 'Scythen'), Turken van aangrenzende sultanaten en emiraten, plunderende Serviërs en bijzonder lastige Normandiërs en kruisvaarders (door haar consequent 'Kelten' genoemd). Deze laatsten, met name Normandiër Robert Guiscard en zijn zoon Bohemond zorgen voor spannende hoofdstukken. Zo wordt Alexios slechts alleen van de formidabele Guiscard verlost, omdat die plotseling zo maar sterft. De hoofdstukken waarin de kruisvaarders van de eerste kruistocht het land doorkruisen (hoofdstuk X t/m XIV) vormen een hoogtepunt van het boek, vooral omdat Anna niets anders dan een bende op geld beluste schurken in de West-Europeanen ziet. Toch vertelt ook zij smakelijk van hun verovering van Jeruzalem op de Turken.
Een andere heftige passage zit in hoofdstuk VIII, waarin de Peçenegen met hulp van de Komanen volledig worden gedecimeerd, inclusief hun vrouwen en kinderen. Zo'n actie zou tegenwoordig zondermeer genocide heten. Op andere punten toont Alexios zich juist een opvallend wijs, sluw en mild keizer: hij verkiest duidelijk diplomatie boven oorlog, list boven bruut geweld, hij vergeeft zijn tegenstanders vaak en ziet veelal af van veroordeling van ketters en andere onverlaten. Anna heeft het bij aanvang van haar geschiedenis herhaaldelijk over ogen uitsteken, maar onder Alexios lijkt deze straf maar weinig voor te komen. Wel is het duidelijk dat je als gewone man in het Byzantijnse rijk maar al te gemakkelijk prooi kon vallen aan plunderende bendes van allerlei slag.
De mooiste passage van Anna's geschiedenis is het allerlaatste hoofdstuk, waarin ze de dood van haar vader beschrijft. Hier laat ze alle neutraliteit varen en vertelt een emotioneel en ontroerend relaas van Alexios' einde. Zo eindigt de dikke geschiedenis over een heel andere tijd op zijn hoogtepunt.
February 16, 2022
Very well written/good prose. The first few volumes of the book I found to be the most interesting detailing Alexios’ rise to power and the political intrigues that ensued but the later volumes detailing the military campaigns of Alexios were very hard to read through as there were so many battles, people and places mentioned that it became quite tedious after a while and a little hard to follow however Anna’s accounts of the first crusade were definitely interesting as were her character descriptions of key figures featured throughout the book.
March 31, 2021
Publicada en el año 1147-1148 d.C. es un relato detallado, épico y profuso sobre el Emperador Alejo I Comneno, el último Gran Emperador Bizantino antes de las sucesivas hecatombes en que se sumió el Imperio Romano de Oriente hasta el trágico final. Escrita por Ana Comnena, su hija y una de las mujeres más cultas de la historia, supone un relato detallado de un momento crucial de la historia que coincide con la Primera Cruzada, las herejías que amenazaban la unidad religiosa y el ascenso de los turcos selyucidas, estos últimos, precursores de los terribles Otomanos.
September 8, 2022
Anna Komnene writes some of the best character summaries I’ve ever come across. She can dole out high praise or an absolute fatal roast in a few short, polite sentences. This was a thoroughly enjoyable read.
Underrated as a history book and as classic literature.
Underrated as a history book and as classic literature.
March 20, 2024
my girl had some JUDGEMENTS
December 14, 2020
A beautifully written book that is extremely informative! All of the history in this book reads like silk :)
March 1, 2025
Ciężko zdecydować od czego zacząć przy tak obszernym i naszpikowanym informacjami dziele jak 'Aleksjada' Anny Komneny.
Wypada chyba rozpocząć od samej autorki, będącej kobiecą latarnią w morzu zdominowanego przez mężczyzn środowiska intelektualnego średniowiecznej Europy.
Anna, córka cesarza Aleksego od młodości wychowywana była na intelektualistkę. Była wybitną specjalistką z wielu dziedzin, począwszy od tych humanistycznych, kończąc na medycynie. Juz sam fakt tego, że mamy do czynienia ze średniowiecznym tekstem napisanym ręką kobiety zachęca do lektury.
Anna zapisała się na kartach historii jako wybitna historyczka dziejów Cesarstwa na przełomie XI/XII wieku.
Aleksjada jest dziełem bardzo złożonym. Składa się na nią piętnaście ksiąg, zbudowanych w sposób chronologiczny, z pewnymi odstępstwami wynikającymi z anegdot chętnie wprowadzanych do tekstu przez autorkę ale także i z jej błędów.
Źródło zbudowane jest na pamięci Anny o wydarzeniach z życia jej ojca Aleksego, ale też licznych rozmowach z osobami znającymi autokratora czy też oficjalnych dokumentach do których miała dostęp podczas pracy. Mimo licznych zapewnień Anny że ponad ojcem ceni sobie prawdę, Aleksjada jest w gruncie rzeczy pomnikiem dokonań jej ojca. Można pokusić się nawet o stwierdzenie, że jest to pomnik miłości córki względem własnych rodziców. Jest to również świadectwo żalu i niespełnionych ambicji autorki względem tronu cesarskiego.
Każdy nowy czytelnik musi przygotować się na długą lekturę. Ponadto, nierzadko zmuszony będzie korzystać z aparatu krytycznego aby lepiej zapoznać się z treścią źródła. W tekście przewijają się osoby o tym samym imieniu co powoduje konsternację.
Czytana przeze mnie wersja polska w tłumaczeniu Oktawiusza Jurewicza mimo drobnych błędów technicznych jest bardzo dobrze wykonanym przekładem. Czytelnik bardzo szybko wczuje się w klimat lektury. Należy podkreślić, że Anna jako intelektualistka bizantyjska lubowała się w wykorzystaniu porównań do innych prac, w szczególności tych antycznych oraz religijnych. Pokazywała tym swoją ogromną wiedzę i popisywała się przed czytelnikiem. Lubowała się również w innych zabiegach pisarskich popularnych w kulturze bizantyjskiej. Aleksjada mogłaby służyć jako pokazowe dzieło kultury Bizancjum.
Treść na pewno nie zawiedzie czytelnika. Książka zawiera szczegółowe opisy wojen i bitew. Krew, wojna i szał mieszają się w niej z miłością, troską i zaufaniem. Źródło ma w sobie wszystko co znajdziemy w nowoczesnej literaturze fantasy. Jest zdrada, są intrygi, mamy też personalne wycieczki autorki opisujące osoby lub ludy wobec których żywiła silne negatywne bądź pozytywne emocje. Czytelnik z pewnością wciągnie się w świat Bizancjum XI/XII wieku i przywiąże się zarówno do niego jak i do samej autorki pracy, współczując jej nieraz, żeby w innym miejscu podziwiać ją za umiejętności i intelekt.
Praca opowiada o trudach z jakimi państwo bizantyjskie zmagało się w opisywanym przez Annę okresie. Zagrożenie stanowiły ludy zachodu jak również Turcy i Arabowie czy też wewnętrzni spiskowcy. Nie chcąc przytaczać fragmentów tekstu ograniczę się tylko do tak ogólnego przedstawienia treści. Pewne jest jedno: czytelnik znienawidzi po lekturze krzyżowców i ich dowództwo.
Zdecydowanie polecam tą książkę wszystkim, niezależnie od stopnia zainteresowania historią. Każdy znajdzie w tej pracy coś dla siebie. Nikt też nie zdoła oprzeć się urokowi Anny Komneny, która regularnie przemyca swoją osobę przez karty tego wybitnego dzieła mimo że to jej tata był głównym bohaterem :)
Wypada chyba rozpocząć od samej autorki, będącej kobiecą latarnią w morzu zdominowanego przez mężczyzn środowiska intelektualnego średniowiecznej Europy.
Anna, córka cesarza Aleksego od młodości wychowywana była na intelektualistkę. Była wybitną specjalistką z wielu dziedzin, począwszy od tych humanistycznych, kończąc na medycynie. Juz sam fakt tego, że mamy do czynienia ze średniowiecznym tekstem napisanym ręką kobiety zachęca do lektury.
Anna zapisała się na kartach historii jako wybitna historyczka dziejów Cesarstwa na przełomie XI/XII wieku.
Aleksjada jest dziełem bardzo złożonym. Składa się na nią piętnaście ksiąg, zbudowanych w sposób chronologiczny, z pewnymi odstępstwami wynikającymi z anegdot chętnie wprowadzanych do tekstu przez autorkę ale także i z jej błędów.
Źródło zbudowane jest na pamięci Anny o wydarzeniach z życia jej ojca Aleksego, ale też licznych rozmowach z osobami znającymi autokratora czy też oficjalnych dokumentach do których miała dostęp podczas pracy. Mimo licznych zapewnień Anny że ponad ojcem ceni sobie prawdę, Aleksjada jest w gruncie rzeczy pomnikiem dokonań jej ojca. Można pokusić się nawet o stwierdzenie, że jest to pomnik miłości córki względem własnych rodziców. Jest to również świadectwo żalu i niespełnionych ambicji autorki względem tronu cesarskiego.
Każdy nowy czytelnik musi przygotować się na długą lekturę. Ponadto, nierzadko zmuszony będzie korzystać z aparatu krytycznego aby lepiej zapoznać się z treścią źródła. W tekście przewijają się osoby o tym samym imieniu co powoduje konsternację.
Czytana przeze mnie wersja polska w tłumaczeniu Oktawiusza Jurewicza mimo drobnych błędów technicznych jest bardzo dobrze wykonanym przekładem. Czytelnik bardzo szybko wczuje się w klimat lektury. Należy podkreślić, że Anna jako intelektualistka bizantyjska lubowała się w wykorzystaniu porównań do innych prac, w szczególności tych antycznych oraz religijnych. Pokazywała tym swoją ogromną wiedzę i popisywała się przed czytelnikiem. Lubowała się również w innych zabiegach pisarskich popularnych w kulturze bizantyjskiej. Aleksjada mogłaby służyć jako pokazowe dzieło kultury Bizancjum.
Treść na pewno nie zawiedzie czytelnika. Książka zawiera szczegółowe opisy wojen i bitew. Krew, wojna i szał mieszają się w niej z miłością, troską i zaufaniem. Źródło ma w sobie wszystko co znajdziemy w nowoczesnej literaturze fantasy. Jest zdrada, są intrygi, mamy też personalne wycieczki autorki opisujące osoby lub ludy wobec których żywiła silne negatywne bądź pozytywne emocje. Czytelnik z pewnością wciągnie się w świat Bizancjum XI/XII wieku i przywiąże się zarówno do niego jak i do samej autorki pracy, współczując jej nieraz, żeby w innym miejscu podziwiać ją za umiejętności i intelekt.
Praca opowiada o trudach z jakimi państwo bizantyjskie zmagało się w opisywanym przez Annę okresie. Zagrożenie stanowiły ludy zachodu jak również Turcy i Arabowie czy też wewnętrzni spiskowcy. Nie chcąc przytaczać fragmentów tekstu ograniczę się tylko do tak ogólnego przedstawienia treści. Pewne jest jedno: czytelnik znienawidzi po lekturze krzyżowców i ich dowództwo.
Zdecydowanie polecam tą książkę wszystkim, niezależnie od stopnia zainteresowania historią. Każdy znajdzie w tej pracy coś dla siebie. Nikt też nie zdoła oprzeć się urokowi Anny Komneny, która regularnie przemyca swoją osobę przez karty tego wybitnego dzieła mimo że to jej tata był głównym bohaterem :)
September 20, 2010
this gets 4 stars for the edition, not the text which is fine.
I had the luxury of reading this in tandem with a number of other less contemporary takes of the Crusades, like Edward Gibbon and Steven Runciman's First Crusade and still more recent things. So I was able to construct a timeline and make sense on my own of the various names and families and places and loyalties and why and what for. I don't know of a current resource for this sort of thing, I used Ostrogorsky.
Anna Komnena is an incomparable source of history for any time but especially for her own times and her position in that world. Her father was the Byzantine Emperor when she was born, so she was born in the Palace, baptised in the holiest of holies and given the bestest education that a Princess could gain in those days. She knew her Homer and Euripides, Euclid and Augustine, a total rarity for women, as a gender (it should be remembered) in that world. And as she got older she also sat on the edge of the Palace in Constantinople, watching the parade of the very first Western, so called Christian Crusaders gaining passage to the battlefield, as it were, into what used to be her back yard. That was run over by the noble but infidel neighbor who had wrested the holy lands from the traditional heir protectors. That is, the Eastern half, the Byzantine half of what once had been the Roman Empire.
So the First Crusade occurred and the West after many years convinced the East that they really really wanted to hold onto a piece of that land: Jeruslaem, Antioch, Acre, maybe a little more. But her father Alexius (whom the title is lovingly named for) died in 1118 and there apparently, at the end had been some misunderstanding. Daddy had given her every reason to expect that when he died the throne would come to her, or if necessary for politics or actual warfare, her husband who had been picked out and was even suited for the task. This kind of thing had been done before, after all. Indeed, Alexius himself had come to the throne thru the favor of Empress Maria who was married conveniently to two Emporers before, in a row. She served as a kind of ideal patroness toward him, seeing how he had demonstrated some suitability after a number of military exploits against local upstarts and even the Sultan. And rumors abounded as to how Maria and Anna, in her turn exacted a promise from him.
In any event. Anna's husband did not become Emporer, nor she Empress, but instead her younger brother John became the next Emperor of the Romans and she was retired to a convent, leaving Constantinople the city of her birth that she almost ruled behind and shuttled way off to the far side of the Black Sea, for the rest of her life, maybe 30 years or more.
It was there that she wrote this tale of her father.
Missed it by that much.
There really does need to be a good more recent take on this book and her life.
Georgina Buckler did a great job in the earlier 20th century with her 1929 Anna Komnena (for Oxford).
Here's one, but it just scratches the surface of an amazing life and times.
href="http://www.amazon.com/Komnene-Times-G... amazon
Displaying 1 - 30 of 117 reviews