What do you think?
Rate this book
Storia di Bisanzio
Per molto tempo la storia dell'impero bizantino (285-1453) ha coinciso con la narrazione della sua decadenza. Eppure, quella bizantina è stata una civiltà ricca e affascinante, una cerniera essenziale tra mondo antico e moderno, e tra occidente europeo e oriente. Questo volume offre una sintesi vivace e aggiornata sulla politica, la società, la cultura dell'impero bizantino. In una esposizione densa di fatti (dalle guerre alle epidemie, dal succedersi degli imperatori allo sviluppo urbano e demografico) è tratteggiato l'intero corso della storia bizantina ed è messo in luce il ruolo che ha avuto Bisanzio nel dar forma al mondo moderno, trasmettendo la cultura classica, allargando a est i confini della cristianità, assicurando per un millennio un certo grado di stabilità all'area del Mediterraneo orientale.
337 pages, Paperback
First published January 6, 2001
20 people are currently reading
202 people want to read
About the author
Warren Treadgold
20 books32 followersWarren Treadgold (AB Harvard, 1970, PhD Harvard, 1977) has taught ancient and medieval history and literature at UCLA, Stanford, UC Berkeley, Hillsdale College, and Florida International University and is now National Endowment for the Humanities Professor of Byzantine Studies at Saint Louis University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
September 7, 2021
This was a great overview of the Byzantine Empire during its entire existence. The author explained its geopolitical inception of 285 AD to rule the Roman Empire as a whole but in two separate but equal entities. Eventually the split of Latin-speaking Roman realm and the Greek-speaking Hellenized realm peaked to form two codependent states by 457 AD. After the barbarian general Odoacer overtook Rome and deposed Augustus Romulus (476 AD) and power grab/land seizure of the last weak Roman emperor Julius Napos (480 AD), Byzantium became the last remaining cultural and religious bastion of Western civilization.
The author gave the narrative of the empire's leaders and politics, internal mechanisms and organization, the uniqueness of its cultural and religious aspects, and interactions with the outside world (military threats from the Bulgars, Arabs, and Persian), the rise and spread of Islam, and the eventual rise of the Ottoman Empire. I was interested in the schism from Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox in 1054 AD. Theological differences (a singular Roman Pope vs. autocephalous patriarchs for example) and other factors were explained nicely.
I enjoyed reading this and felt I learned quite a good bit of information. When I was in public school and taking college classes they always focused on the rise and fall of the Roman Empire and briefly covered the history of Byzantium. I would highly recommend this. Thanks!
The author gave the narrative of the empire's leaders and politics, internal mechanisms and organization, the uniqueness of its cultural and religious aspects, and interactions with the outside world (military threats from the Bulgars, Arabs, and Persian), the rise and spread of Islam, and the eventual rise of the Ottoman Empire. I was interested in the schism from Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox in 1054 AD. Theological differences (a singular Roman Pope vs. autocephalous patriarchs for example) and other factors were explained nicely.
I enjoyed reading this and felt I learned quite a good bit of information. When I was in public school and taking college classes they always focused on the rise and fall of the Roman Empire and briefly covered the history of Byzantium. I would highly recommend this. Thanks!
November 7, 2025
Treadgold (how euphonious for a historian of Byzantium!) gives us a competent and to my mind fascinating study of the Eastern Empire. Like most men, I think about the Roman Empire more or less constantly, but sometimes there may be hours or even days between my musings on Byzantium. This may change from now on.
Christian disapproval of public nudity got the gymnasia closed down. But, ponders Treadgold, why didn’t they just make athletes wear some clothes instead? A good point I had never considered before. And something else: I have known and admired Justinian’s achievements since we studied them at school when I was 12 years old, but I hadn’t quite grasped how remarkable they were when set against two hugely undermining factors: the Black Death, and the Empress Theodora’s championing of the Monophysites.
The organisation of the Empire into Themes – areas set aside for the maintenance of designated military forces – was a great success, and abandoning it on grounds of cost or changing it for paid mercenaries always resulted in disaster. The rulers from Irene to Basil II were unusually capable: a period of nearly 300 years from the end of the eighth century. The Empire flourished then, but it could easily have gone the other way. There were plenty of disasters and plenty of horrors (the favourite punishment of nose slitting being notable). And yet, as the author points out, the East never produced a Nero, let alone a Hitler or a Stalin. The fact that it survived as long as it did is remarkable. So too is its cultural legacy.
Although I enjoyed this a lot it is a bit too short for my liking and sometimes felt a little compressed and therefore dry. I think I’d have enjoyed it more if if was at least twice as long.
Christian disapproval of public nudity got the gymnasia closed down. But, ponders Treadgold, why didn’t they just make athletes wear some clothes instead? A good point I had never considered before. And something else: I have known and admired Justinian’s achievements since we studied them at school when I was 12 years old, but I hadn’t quite grasped how remarkable they were when set against two hugely undermining factors: the Black Death, and the Empress Theodora’s championing of the Monophysites.
The organisation of the Empire into Themes – areas set aside for the maintenance of designated military forces – was a great success, and abandoning it on grounds of cost or changing it for paid mercenaries always resulted in disaster. The rulers from Irene to Basil II were unusually capable: a period of nearly 300 years from the end of the eighth century. The Empire flourished then, but it could easily have gone the other way. There were plenty of disasters and plenty of horrors (the favourite punishment of nose slitting being notable). And yet, as the author points out, the East never produced a Nero, let alone a Hitler or a Stalin. The fact that it survived as long as it did is remarkable. So too is its cultural legacy.
Although I enjoyed this a lot it is a bit too short for my liking and sometimes felt a little compressed and therefore dry. I think I’d have enjoyed it more if if was at least twice as long.
October 12, 2024
If you ask people in the West when the Roman Empire ended, those with some familiarity with history are likely to point to Odoacer’s dismissal of the last Western emperor, Romulus Augustulus, in 476. While this event marked the end of the Roman empire’s political authority in the western part of their old empire, it overlooks how, when he seized the imperial insignia, Odoacer sent it to Romulus Augustulus’s counterpart in the Eastern Empire, Flavius Zeno. There the Roman empire would endure for nearly another millennium, until its final conquest by the Ottoman Turks in 1453.
Recounting the long history of the Eastern Empire – or Byzantium as it came to be known – in a single book is no easy feat, and doing so concisely only adds to the challenge. Fortunately, Warren Treadgold proves more than up to the task. As a longtime scholar of the Byzantine empire, he brings an expert’s familiarity to the work of distilling the centuries of events that make up the empire’s existence down to the essentials that explain its fate. He begins this effort with a description of the emperor Diocletian’s division of the empire into two parts in 285 CE, which allows him not only to chart the growing divergence between the two parts but also to show how the survival of the eastern part was far from certain. Among the themes that emerge from the start is the role that leadership and administration played in Byzantium’s survival, which was something that not always present in the Eastern empire’s first two centuries.
Nevertheless, the Eastern Empire overcame the challenge of invasion by barbarians and Sasanian Persia to outlast their brethren in the West. Under the ambitious 6th century emperor Justinian the Byzantines undertook a major effort to regain those parts of the old empire now lost to the Germanic tribes, only for their efforts to be curtailed by the outbreak of bubonic plague in the empire. Justinian’s successors focused mainly on preserving what they could of their expanded dominion, especially in the face of war first with the Sasanians and then with the Islamic empires that burst out of the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century. Despite losing more than two-thirds of the territory they controlled at the end of Justinian’s reign, the Byzantines adapted by reorganizing in ways that made their defenses more sustainable.
What followed was a remarkable recovery in the 9th and 10th centuries, in which a series of capable leaders regained many of the territories that had been lost. By the start of the 11th century, the empire was prosperous and thriving culturally. Treadgold sees a series of political and military reverses over the century and a half following the death of Emperor Basil II in 1025 as key to the empire’s ruin, which culminated in the capture and sack of Constantinople by the Venetians and the Crusaders in 1204. Though Byzantium endured for another two and a half centuries, it was a shadow of its former self, reduced by 1400 to just Constantinople and some adjacent territory. By then survival was at the sufferance of the Ottomans, who had surrounded what was left of the empire and whose overwhelming superiority made the end a question of when rather than if.
Treadgold surveys these developments in a narrative that is filled with perceptive assessments. This helps his book to surmount the problems with his approach. Though the author offers a broad overview that includes the social and cultural history of the empire, the chapters largely consist of a history focused on the various emperors of the era, with consideration of the social and cultural elements tacked on at the end. At times this threatens to turn his book into a dull recitation of names, dates, and places, yet Treadgold overcomes this with sharp judgments that convey succinctly the personalities of the many people he discusses and how this shaped events. This makes his book an excellent overview of the history of the Byzantine Empire, one that encapsulates nicely the scope and flow of over eleven centuries of history in little more than two hundred pages.
Recounting the long history of the Eastern Empire – or Byzantium as it came to be known – in a single book is no easy feat, and doing so concisely only adds to the challenge. Fortunately, Warren Treadgold proves more than up to the task. As a longtime scholar of the Byzantine empire, he brings an expert’s familiarity to the work of distilling the centuries of events that make up the empire’s existence down to the essentials that explain its fate. He begins this effort with a description of the emperor Diocletian’s division of the empire into two parts in 285 CE, which allows him not only to chart the growing divergence between the two parts but also to show how the survival of the eastern part was far from certain. Among the themes that emerge from the start is the role that leadership and administration played in Byzantium’s survival, which was something that not always present in the Eastern empire’s first two centuries.
Nevertheless, the Eastern Empire overcame the challenge of invasion by barbarians and Sasanian Persia to outlast their brethren in the West. Under the ambitious 6th century emperor Justinian the Byzantines undertook a major effort to regain those parts of the old empire now lost to the Germanic tribes, only for their efforts to be curtailed by the outbreak of bubonic plague in the empire. Justinian’s successors focused mainly on preserving what they could of their expanded dominion, especially in the face of war first with the Sasanians and then with the Islamic empires that burst out of the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century. Despite losing more than two-thirds of the territory they controlled at the end of Justinian’s reign, the Byzantines adapted by reorganizing in ways that made their defenses more sustainable.
What followed was a remarkable recovery in the 9th and 10th centuries, in which a series of capable leaders regained many of the territories that had been lost. By the start of the 11th century, the empire was prosperous and thriving culturally. Treadgold sees a series of political and military reverses over the century and a half following the death of Emperor Basil II in 1025 as key to the empire’s ruin, which culminated in the capture and sack of Constantinople by the Venetians and the Crusaders in 1204. Though Byzantium endured for another two and a half centuries, it was a shadow of its former self, reduced by 1400 to just Constantinople and some adjacent territory. By then survival was at the sufferance of the Ottomans, who had surrounded what was left of the empire and whose overwhelming superiority made the end a question of when rather than if.
Treadgold surveys these developments in a narrative that is filled with perceptive assessments. This helps his book to surmount the problems with his approach. Though the author offers a broad overview that includes the social and cultural history of the empire, the chapters largely consist of a history focused on the various emperors of the era, with consideration of the social and cultural elements tacked on at the end. At times this threatens to turn his book into a dull recitation of names, dates, and places, yet Treadgold overcomes this with sharp judgments that convey succinctly the personalities of the many people he discusses and how this shaped events. This makes his book an excellent overview of the history of the Byzantine Empire, one that encapsulates nicely the scope and flow of over eleven centuries of history in little more than two hundred pages.
June 29, 2020
Σύντομη και περιεκτική επίτομη ιστορία του Βυζαντίου.
Ευκολοδιαβαστη,χωρισμένη με σωστό τροπο(στρατιωτικά-πολιτικά,κοινωνικά,οικονομικά,πολιτιστικά).
Ένας μπούσουλας σωστά δομημένος και επιστημονικός.
Το μόνο αρνητικό είναι η τσιγκουνιά σε χάρτες καθώς έχει μόνο 10-15 χάρτες.
Καλή ανάγνωση
Ευκολοδιαβαστη,χωρισμένη με σωστό τροπο(στρατιωτικά-πολιτικά,κοινωνικά,οικονομικά,πολιτιστικά).
Ένας μπούσουλας σωστά δομημένος και επιστημονικός.
Το μόνο αρνητικό είναι η τσιγκουνιά σε χάρτες καθώς έχει μόνο 10-15 χάρτες.
Καλή ανάγνωση
July 29, 2020
This book was a pleasant surprise. In general, I like reading about Byzantine history and if there are not as many books about the subject as I would prefer, those I happen to find are generally solid [1]. What this book does, though, is manage to find in a very concise form a middle ground between narrative histories that focus on the personalities of the rulers of the Byzantine empire or those who were close to them like Patriarchs and so on and social histories that focus on the economic, intellectual, and demographic trends of the Byzantine Empire over the course of a millennium and that demonstrate the basic strength or weakness of the empire at various periods. The author himself explicitly comments upon his aim to make narrative history worthwhile to fans of social history and make social history worthwhile to fans of narrative history and as someone who is a fan of both I found this book to be a very enjoyable read both for its narrative as well as for its discussion about the underlying social factors that were beneath that narrative. If you too have a fondness for the Byzantine Empire as well as narrative and social history, this book has a lot to offer.
This book is about 250 pages long and it is divided into eight chapters that are generally chronologically organized. Most of the chapters begin with a narrative portion and then contain a discussion of society and culture during the particular time period of the chapter as a way of providing a consistent approach with the entirety of Byzantine history. The book begins with a list if maps and tables, a list of figures, a preface, and an introduction that discusses the problem of decline and the Roman background (1). After that the author discusses the formation of Byzantium in the period between Diocletian and the weak emperors that followed Constantine's dynasty (2). After that the author deals with the period of reconquest and crisis that included Justinian's efforts and the plague that doomed them (3). This leads to a look at the catastrophe and its containment that took place in the seventh and eighth centuries (4) as well as the period of recovery that followed until the end of the Macedonian dynasty (5). This leads to a look at the wealth and weakness of the Byzantine Emperor that lasted from the disaster at Mankizert and the disaster of the Fourth Crusade (6). The author then discusses the restoration and fall of the empire (7) as well as a conclusion that looks at the problem of measurement as well as the legacy of the empire (8) as well as a bibliography, list of emperors, and an index.
One of the points that the author makes that is worth dwelling on is the fact that for a long time, in fact until the 14th century, the Byzantine Empire had surprising strength and viability even though it had dramatic swings in its power from positions of power to times of crisis. Many of the crises that most dramatically harmed the empire were the result of internal divisions among a corrupt elite, but even if leadership was not always present to a high degree and even if the Byzantine world showed a frequent and alarming tendency towards schism even to its closing days as an independent state, there was underlying strength in the Byzantine state among its people and culture that is worth appreciating even if it was not always led to the greatest degree possible. Even in the darkest days of the Byzantine empire during the seventh and eighth centuries the Byzantines were able to preserve at least something the classical heritage they inherited and then built upon it and spread it when times got better after centuries of gradual recovery which only slowly showed itself in larger military power. The author's blend of narrative and social history does a good job at demonstrating the importance of having a larger view of Byzantine history.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2019...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2019...
This book is about 250 pages long and it is divided into eight chapters that are generally chronologically organized. Most of the chapters begin with a narrative portion and then contain a discussion of society and culture during the particular time period of the chapter as a way of providing a consistent approach with the entirety of Byzantine history. The book begins with a list if maps and tables, a list of figures, a preface, and an introduction that discusses the problem of decline and the Roman background (1). After that the author discusses the formation of Byzantium in the period between Diocletian and the weak emperors that followed Constantine's dynasty (2). After that the author deals with the period of reconquest and crisis that included Justinian's efforts and the plague that doomed them (3). This leads to a look at the catastrophe and its containment that took place in the seventh and eighth centuries (4) as well as the period of recovery that followed until the end of the Macedonian dynasty (5). This leads to a look at the wealth and weakness of the Byzantine Emperor that lasted from the disaster at Mankizert and the disaster of the Fourth Crusade (6). The author then discusses the restoration and fall of the empire (7) as well as a conclusion that looks at the problem of measurement as well as the legacy of the empire (8) as well as a bibliography, list of emperors, and an index.
One of the points that the author makes that is worth dwelling on is the fact that for a long time, in fact until the 14th century, the Byzantine Empire had surprising strength and viability even though it had dramatic swings in its power from positions of power to times of crisis. Many of the crises that most dramatically harmed the empire were the result of internal divisions among a corrupt elite, but even if leadership was not always present to a high degree and even if the Byzantine world showed a frequent and alarming tendency towards schism even to its closing days as an independent state, there was underlying strength in the Byzantine state among its people and culture that is worth appreciating even if it was not always led to the greatest degree possible. Even in the darkest days of the Byzantine empire during the seventh and eighth centuries the Byzantines were able to preserve at least something the classical heritage they inherited and then built upon it and spread it when times got better after centuries of gradual recovery which only slowly showed itself in larger military power. The author's blend of narrative and social history does a good job at demonstrating the importance of having a larger view of Byzantine history.
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2019...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2019...
July 22, 2018
This is a competent history of the Byzantine Empire. There are some pros and some cons, all of which combine to make the book decent, but not great.
The first con is that the book is simply too short to deal with the subject matter. This is a problem I have with a lot of short histories; my review of Colin Renfrew’s “Prehistory” has the same complaint. There is too much going on here for it all the be adequately covered in 243 pages and still be enjoyable to read. But, the information is all there at a basic level, and that’s a good thing, but it makes for some dry reading quite often.
Another con is related to this; Treadgold isn’t trying to write an easy to read history, he’s trying to get the information in. I was told he has another history of Byzantium that is multiple volumes long, and was claimed to be simply too long to be comprehensible. This has the opposite problem; it’s so brief that it’s difficult to comprehend long term shifts in a culture and society, but you get events and names pretty simply. Also, the writing is competent, but uninspired and somewhat dry, as I stated. This isn’t so much a problem for me, but if you want something light and fun to read it won’t be this book (though this book is probably more practical for actual students, nor perusers. It depends on what you want personally.)
A pro is that the book doesn’t take long to read. You can survey briefly ~1200 years of history, and that’s always a difficult thing to pull off even competently. Treadgold does this, but just barely, and he deserves recognition for it.
Also, I don’t see any glaring problems with Treadgold’s scholarship. As an archaeologist I would have liked more references to specific archaeological sites, but it’s clear the book was well researched and that Treadgold knows his stuff. I don’t agree with all of his arguments in the first and final chapters, but he isn’t wrong to have those opinions.
Overall, I wouldn’t recommend this book to everyone. Anyone who is a fan of history-as in the writing of history, not historical time periods or events- should read this, as it’s a great example of a competent, concise history. However, if you’re reading this for entertainment I would suggest you look somewhere else unless a dry account of events is your idea of interesting (it’s mine, personally, but not everyone’s cup of tea). If you’re a student of the Byzantines, as I somewhat am as a Roman archaeologist, I would recommend a longer, more complete history. This is fine as an introduction, though.
The first con is that the book is simply too short to deal with the subject matter. This is a problem I have with a lot of short histories; my review of Colin Renfrew’s “Prehistory” has the same complaint. There is too much going on here for it all the be adequately covered in 243 pages and still be enjoyable to read. But, the information is all there at a basic level, and that’s a good thing, but it makes for some dry reading quite often.
Another con is related to this; Treadgold isn’t trying to write an easy to read history, he’s trying to get the information in. I was told he has another history of Byzantium that is multiple volumes long, and was claimed to be simply too long to be comprehensible. This has the opposite problem; it’s so brief that it’s difficult to comprehend long term shifts in a culture and society, but you get events and names pretty simply. Also, the writing is competent, but uninspired and somewhat dry, as I stated. This isn’t so much a problem for me, but if you want something light and fun to read it won’t be this book (though this book is probably more practical for actual students, nor perusers. It depends on what you want personally.)
A pro is that the book doesn’t take long to read. You can survey briefly ~1200 years of history, and that’s always a difficult thing to pull off even competently. Treadgold does this, but just barely, and he deserves recognition for it.
Also, I don’t see any glaring problems with Treadgold’s scholarship. As an archaeologist I would have liked more references to specific archaeological sites, but it’s clear the book was well researched and that Treadgold knows his stuff. I don’t agree with all of his arguments in the first and final chapters, but he isn’t wrong to have those opinions.
Overall, I wouldn’t recommend this book to everyone. Anyone who is a fan of history-as in the writing of history, not historical time periods or events- should read this, as it’s a great example of a competent, concise history. However, if you’re reading this for entertainment I would suggest you look somewhere else unless a dry account of events is your idea of interesting (it’s mine, personally, but not everyone’s cup of tea). If you’re a student of the Byzantines, as I somewhat am as a Roman archaeologist, I would recommend a longer, more complete history. This is fine as an introduction, though.
March 29, 2021
My first foray into Byzantine history was as with most people in western Europe through the crusades. West European history in high school has a lot of trouble with Byzantium because you know history classes last year ended with the fall of Rome and yet here is the eastern Roman empire. So most classes as did mine tend to skip the Byzantine history until the crusaders are at the door namely when “we” show up.
Since then I have been reading and listening a bit more but still felt that I lacked basic knowledge of the train of events concerning the history of the medieval roman empire. Right out the bat I would say that this book by Warren Treadgold does succeed to a fair degree in that regard. Dividing the book and history in 6 periods from 285 till 1461. That is unusual dating, most of the books and people that talk about Byzantium start and end with Constantinople but Treadgold is adamant on the importance of the administrative and governing structures devised by the Pagan emperor Diocletian which they profoundly Christian state would continue until its last offshoot the empire of Trezibond was put out of its misery by the Turkish Ottomans. These two dates also hint at Treadgolds two main focuses, the political and the governing.
A concise History of Byzantium splits each chapter in a political turn of events and the society the aforementioned political actors acted in and about. This is a bit of a mixed bag, some chapters are an endless series of intrigues and coups, murders and attempted mutinies that it is hard to keep track but on the other hand it does probably contain all of the major turbulences so…. This overview of essentially chaos gives an impression of djees this is bad but then you get to the society part and it is all like yeah the society was actually doing great. Trade and cities, demographic boom, governance…so what kind of mixed message is this. No it is fact not, Treadgold early on is adamant on proving that Byzantium was a great and superior state and society then any surrounding it. It was the politicians that screwed things up ya see.
Only three emperors get the golden stamp from Treadgold, Justinian, Basil II and Mikhaēl VIII Palaiologos. Not that surprising in itself but I was surprised by the not quite damnation but at least serious disapproval of alexius comnenus not for his deed but for what he did not do; namely work with the crusaders to recapture more former Byzantine land. What Treadgold is doing is basically evaluating emperor on the basis of how long they halted the eventual fall of the empire, thus those that captured most get the most praise. That seems to be a recurring issue with most if not all books on Byzantine History; this fall that looms overhead like a sword of Damocles. That sword seems to demand an explanation why the empire fell and Treadgold places blame firmly on the political.
The impression that one gets from the political story in this book, is that most emperors were simply to busy playing a vicious game of thrones to have any goals beyond survival. To me this is presenting these emperors a bit too much as acting in a vacuum. What did the loss of Anatolia mean for the worldview of the empire and its society? Treadgolds view on events leaves one with impression that it was actually somehow a good thing; it was mostly underpopulated anyway and the nobles from the region were militaristic and prone to rebellion and participating in the infighting. Did those nobles exiled from their regions simple accept this with a shrug and move on? As a whole Treadgold approach tends to stick to closely to the person of the emperor and does not accommodate the composition and ambitions of the political elites beyond those in the halls of the imperial palace. The rest of Byzantine society, the peseants (free or not) craftmen, monks, bishops and soldiers do get mentioning but looked at as assets of the Byzantine state personified by the emperors. Topdown is an understatement describing Treadgold’s point of view.
Has he convinced me? Hmm not quite. To me two issues stand out with his approach. First is that his analysis of the emperor as a position and as a goal for ambitious individuals and all the turbulence this brought about, fails to adequately take into account the lack of rules concerning succession. The late Roman state and latter Byzantine empire never even after a thousand years was able to finally agree on a stable succession procedure. Most if not all the political turbulence seems to stem from this tangible possibility that anyone with a sword and good word could become emperor if he/she had the guts for it. So blame individuals all you want for playing the game, but the game came with these rules.
A second issue I have is that it is easy to read books like this and get a near dystopian image of a might makes right social Darwinian nightmare going on in the court of Constantinople. It is difficult to imagine a neutral administration going on while of this is happening but that is what Threadgold seems to imply. The governance just kept it’s head down and stuck to the job. Anyone who has worked in governance and large firms knows that they aren’t a faceless automaton extension of top power. That is the issue with a topdown approach like this, at some point you tend to nitpick on character traits of emperors as a source of misfortune for the whole state and society. Especially when we come closer to the fall of Byzantium this tendency starts to proliferate.
Finally some little things that I noticed. Theodora, again a staple in literature either one loves Theodora or one demonizes her, treadgold does the latter. The impact of plague, Byzantium was struck by epidemics two times, in time of Justinian and during the black death. Blame covid but even so the impact of the plagues is really glossed over. It almost seemed like a walk in the park when compared to the endless barrage of political idiocy of (would be) emperors and their advisors/wives/cousins etc while yeah like ¼ of the population died off plague during Justian’s age, but sure yeah the intrigue went on so business as usual I guess? Then there was the hole communism part; yes you read that right communism. In the conclusion and on the legacy of the empire Treadgold goes on this what is in essence a rant on the disastrous impact of communism on eastern Europe and at first I was genuinely like what does this have to do with Byzantium, but then it hit me. Cultural causes of prosperity was all the rage in the late 90ties and early 2000’s and Greek/Russian orthodox Christianity/culture was in the crossfire of those commenting on the poorer easter European half of Europe. Treadgold I believe, has written this book in part with the goal in mind to imprint on readers this wealthy strong, culturally intellectually artistically vibrant society ruined by its politics. Look at that parallel with the 20th century eastern bloc made.
In conclusion it is serviceable as a starting point but should not be your only book to read on the subject. Take in mind Treadgolds agenda and the limitations of his top down view while reading and you should be good to go. Oh and don't forget to play as basil II in civ 6 if you really want the top down empire experience https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaZnd...
Since then I have been reading and listening a bit more but still felt that I lacked basic knowledge of the train of events concerning the history of the medieval roman empire. Right out the bat I would say that this book by Warren Treadgold does succeed to a fair degree in that regard. Dividing the book and history in 6 periods from 285 till 1461. That is unusual dating, most of the books and people that talk about Byzantium start and end with Constantinople but Treadgold is adamant on the importance of the administrative and governing structures devised by the Pagan emperor Diocletian which they profoundly Christian state would continue until its last offshoot the empire of Trezibond was put out of its misery by the Turkish Ottomans. These two dates also hint at Treadgolds two main focuses, the political and the governing.
A concise History of Byzantium splits each chapter in a political turn of events and the society the aforementioned political actors acted in and about. This is a bit of a mixed bag, some chapters are an endless series of intrigues and coups, murders and attempted mutinies that it is hard to keep track but on the other hand it does probably contain all of the major turbulences so…. This overview of essentially chaos gives an impression of djees this is bad but then you get to the society part and it is all like yeah the society was actually doing great. Trade and cities, demographic boom, governance…so what kind of mixed message is this. No it is fact not, Treadgold early on is adamant on proving that Byzantium was a great and superior state and society then any surrounding it. It was the politicians that screwed things up ya see.
Only three emperors get the golden stamp from Treadgold, Justinian, Basil II and Mikhaēl VIII Palaiologos. Not that surprising in itself but I was surprised by the not quite damnation but at least serious disapproval of alexius comnenus not for his deed but for what he did not do; namely work with the crusaders to recapture more former Byzantine land. What Treadgold is doing is basically evaluating emperor on the basis of how long they halted the eventual fall of the empire, thus those that captured most get the most praise. That seems to be a recurring issue with most if not all books on Byzantine History; this fall that looms overhead like a sword of Damocles. That sword seems to demand an explanation why the empire fell and Treadgold places blame firmly on the political.
The impression that one gets from the political story in this book, is that most emperors were simply to busy playing a vicious game of thrones to have any goals beyond survival. To me this is presenting these emperors a bit too much as acting in a vacuum. What did the loss of Anatolia mean for the worldview of the empire and its society? Treadgolds view on events leaves one with impression that it was actually somehow a good thing; it was mostly underpopulated anyway and the nobles from the region were militaristic and prone to rebellion and participating in the infighting. Did those nobles exiled from their regions simple accept this with a shrug and move on? As a whole Treadgold approach tends to stick to closely to the person of the emperor and does not accommodate the composition and ambitions of the political elites beyond those in the halls of the imperial palace. The rest of Byzantine society, the peseants (free or not) craftmen, monks, bishops and soldiers do get mentioning but looked at as assets of the Byzantine state personified by the emperors. Topdown is an understatement describing Treadgold’s point of view.
Has he convinced me? Hmm not quite. To me two issues stand out with his approach. First is that his analysis of the emperor as a position and as a goal for ambitious individuals and all the turbulence this brought about, fails to adequately take into account the lack of rules concerning succession. The late Roman state and latter Byzantine empire never even after a thousand years was able to finally agree on a stable succession procedure. Most if not all the political turbulence seems to stem from this tangible possibility that anyone with a sword and good word could become emperor if he/she had the guts for it. So blame individuals all you want for playing the game, but the game came with these rules.
A second issue I have is that it is easy to read books like this and get a near dystopian image of a might makes right social Darwinian nightmare going on in the court of Constantinople. It is difficult to imagine a neutral administration going on while of this is happening but that is what Threadgold seems to imply. The governance just kept it’s head down and stuck to the job. Anyone who has worked in governance and large firms knows that they aren’t a faceless automaton extension of top power. That is the issue with a topdown approach like this, at some point you tend to nitpick on character traits of emperors as a source of misfortune for the whole state and society. Especially when we come closer to the fall of Byzantium this tendency starts to proliferate.
Finally some little things that I noticed. Theodora, again a staple in literature either one loves Theodora or one demonizes her, treadgold does the latter. The impact of plague, Byzantium was struck by epidemics two times, in time of Justinian and during the black death. Blame covid but even so the impact of the plagues is really glossed over. It almost seemed like a walk in the park when compared to the endless barrage of political idiocy of (would be) emperors and their advisors/wives/cousins etc while yeah like ¼ of the population died off plague during Justian’s age, but sure yeah the intrigue went on so business as usual I guess? Then there was the hole communism part; yes you read that right communism. In the conclusion and on the legacy of the empire Treadgold goes on this what is in essence a rant on the disastrous impact of communism on eastern Europe and at first I was genuinely like what does this have to do with Byzantium, but then it hit me. Cultural causes of prosperity was all the rage in the late 90ties and early 2000’s and Greek/Russian orthodox Christianity/culture was in the crossfire of those commenting on the poorer easter European half of Europe. Treadgold I believe, has written this book in part with the goal in mind to imprint on readers this wealthy strong, culturally intellectually artistically vibrant society ruined by its politics. Look at that parallel with the 20th century eastern bloc made.
In conclusion it is serviceable as a starting point but should not be your only book to read on the subject. Take in mind Treadgolds agenda and the limitations of his top down view while reading and you should be good to go. Oh and don't forget to play as basil II in civ 6 if you really want the top down empire experience https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaZnd...
June 22, 2013
A good (and very readable) brief history of the Eastern part of the Roman Empire, which survived until the Fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. However, it is also bit uneven. For example, it spends pages and pages talking about individuals fighting, deposing, and/or literally blinding each other in order to become minor emperors yet devotes less than a page to the Fall of Constantinople.
The bulk of each chapter is a narrative of the political history of the empire, its emperors, conquests, armies and finances during the selected time period. The rest of each chapter covers social history, such as art, culture, and religion, which rounds out the overall picture of each period.
I look forward to reading Treadgold's "A History of the Byzantine State and Society" (1997) from which this concise history was abridged and modified (with some updates in content as well). It should be more thorough, and hopefully not as uneven.
If you are interested in Byzantine history I would also recommend the free "12 Byzantine Emperors" podcasts by Lars Brownworth (you can find them at 12byzantinerulers.com).
The bulk of each chapter is a narrative of the political history of the empire, its emperors, conquests, armies and finances during the selected time period. The rest of each chapter covers social history, such as art, culture, and religion, which rounds out the overall picture of each period.
I look forward to reading Treadgold's "A History of the Byzantine State and Society" (1997) from which this concise history was abridged and modified (with some updates in content as well). It should be more thorough, and hopefully not as uneven.
If you are interested in Byzantine history I would also recommend the free "12 Byzantine Emperors" podcasts by Lars Brownworth (you can find them at 12byzantinerulers.com).
September 9, 2021
In under 250 pages Professor Treadgold produced an excellent concise history of a large, complex empire that lasted for well over a millennium. He acknowledges that this is a condensed version of his much longer history, and in that light this version is even more of an achevement in its own right. By necessity such a history can, to the new reader, seem like an almost endless series of main characters (the emperors, mostly); the author probably doesn't expect one to keep the names of all those people straight, at least upon first reading. I'm reminded of the song "The Begat" from "Finian's Rainbow," or at least the idea behind it where one name leads to another and then another, ad infinitum.
But 'A Concise History...' is more than just a who's who list. For me it provided an opening into an era and a place that seems to have been glossed over in my college Western Civ. and History of Rome courses. If the reader will stay the course, he or she can reliably bring Byzantium to life, and place it into a larger context without sacrificing detail.
I'll highlight a few of the things that really caught my attention about Byzantium. Religious dogma seems to have had an outsized influence on the civil viability of the empire, causing scisms not just in the church, but among those vying for emperor, as well as international alliances in the region. Professor Treadgold cites three or four such examples; one wonders if the empire could have been stronger or survived longer if not for these inane, ultimately pointless squabbles. The reader is reminded of the viciousness of leaders in their slaughter and maiming of enemies foreign and domestic, even family members, as seemingly routine practice over the centuries. In one instance an entire military company was blinded and marched back to their home in this condition. Finally, over its life, the boundaries of Byzantium varied widely as it was invaded and pressured from all sides. The city of Constantinople seems to have been the steady presence through the centuries up until the very end.
I wish the maps would have been larger (perhaps occupying both facing pages across instead of just one page each), because each map is dense with place names and boundaries that can be helpful to the reader. This is a minor suggestion. I can easily scan each of these map pages on my printer/scanner, and then print them out in larger versions.
Professor Treadgold competently wrapped up each section, chapter, and finally the whole book by summarizing, and by placing it all in context. I plan to read another history of Byzantium, one with quite a few more illustrations, both to solidify the knowledge gained here, and to get the fresh perspective of a different author. But make no mistake, I am very happy I decided to read Professor Treadgold's concise history first, as a solid foundation. Byzantium has provided modernity much to reflect upon for subsequent history, and for our own time. A classmate once said, "history never changes" (meant as a criticism). He was wrong, of course - history is always, and will always be, subject to revision in light of research and scholarship. But the real answer is that history is so vast, we will never know it all.
But 'A Concise History...' is more than just a who's who list. For me it provided an opening into an era and a place that seems to have been glossed over in my college Western Civ. and History of Rome courses. If the reader will stay the course, he or she can reliably bring Byzantium to life, and place it into a larger context without sacrificing detail.
I'll highlight a few of the things that really caught my attention about Byzantium. Religious dogma seems to have had an outsized influence on the civil viability of the empire, causing scisms not just in the church, but among those vying for emperor, as well as international alliances in the region. Professor Treadgold cites three or four such examples; one wonders if the empire could have been stronger or survived longer if not for these inane, ultimately pointless squabbles. The reader is reminded of the viciousness of leaders in their slaughter and maiming of enemies foreign and domestic, even family members, as seemingly routine practice over the centuries. In one instance an entire military company was blinded and marched back to their home in this condition. Finally, over its life, the boundaries of Byzantium varied widely as it was invaded and pressured from all sides. The city of Constantinople seems to have been the steady presence through the centuries up until the very end.
I wish the maps would have been larger (perhaps occupying both facing pages across instead of just one page each), because each map is dense with place names and boundaries that can be helpful to the reader. This is a minor suggestion. I can easily scan each of these map pages on my printer/scanner, and then print them out in larger versions.
Professor Treadgold competently wrapped up each section, chapter, and finally the whole book by summarizing, and by placing it all in context. I plan to read another history of Byzantium, one with quite a few more illustrations, both to solidify the knowledge gained here, and to get the fresh perspective of a different author. But make no mistake, I am very happy I decided to read Professor Treadgold's concise history first, as a solid foundation. Byzantium has provided modernity much to reflect upon for subsequent history, and for our own time. A classmate once said, "history never changes" (meant as a criticism). He was wrong, of course - history is always, and will always be, subject to revision in light of research and scholarship. But the real answer is that history is so vast, we will never know it all.
February 21, 2024
拜占庭帝國做為世界史上曾經輝煌的一個強權，台灣坊間關於它的著作卻是少的可憐，基本上，用圖書號稱收藏最多的國圖來找，筆者找到比較正經八百的書也就劉增泉先生多年前翻譯的《拜占庭帝國與東正教世界》一書而已。
但話說回來，在中國方面，雖然北大開了一間希臘研究中心，不過目前來說，就筆者所知，關於這方面的研究者主要有徐家玲、陳志強跟崔艷紅等人，似乎都是師生關係。筆者語文能力不佳，還是只能就華文資料打轉。這本《拜占庭簡史》就是由崔艷紅小姐所譯的作品。
原作Warren Treadgold是美國的學者，這本書是他希望寫給感興趣但又不想讀大部頭的一般大眾，以完成拋磚引玉作用，讓更多人關心這塊領域。內容不厚，許多地方都充滿著作者的學術評論觀點，在各個章節採用史實敘述時代背景，然後以介紹社��文化做小結。這樣的寫作方式，對於用來理解拜占庭千年史中，各個時期的變化，是頗具效果的。只是做為一部簡史，當然還都只是“點到為止”，確實是乾淨俐落。
拜占庭帝國，又稱東羅馬帝國。事實上，前者的稱呼是學者加上的，後者的稱呼是當時人主觀認定的，這是個簡單的概念，卻是往往被許多教科書忽略的。猶記得當初筆者閱讀《你一定愛讀的極簡歐洲史》時，該書曾說一個比喻：「如果你穿越回去中世紀，在路上抓個人問他關於羅馬帝國滅亡的感想，一定會把對方問的一頭霧水，因為他們會認為皇帝明明就好好的在君士坦丁堡。」
當然，這也只是個簡單的故事。不過作者試圖點出的是基礎教育所忽略掉的一個初級認知：476年結束的是西羅馬帝國，而不是整個，事實上東部帝國依然做為唯一的皇帝而存在，直到神聖羅馬帝國的出現。會造成這樣的問題，多少也跟重心放在西歐有關，或許君士坦丁堡的陷落會因為土耳其人的壯大而被記上一筆，但往往會說是拜占庭帝國的滅亡，一般人要嘛就不明就底，要嘛就忽然冒出疑竇：「東羅馬帝國去哪了？怎麼改名了？」
而在學術界，“拜占庭”這個名稱的使用雖然是公認的，但從何開始，也是一大爭論。不論如何，從戴克理先開始，羅馬帝國從實質上就已經開始在轉變，基本上，查士丁尼被稱為“最後一位羅馬皇帝”或許也不是沒有道理。但這都是我們後人的觀感，當時人自然是不得而知的，正如同未來的人會怎麼看待在台灣自稱中華民國的吾等，也是非能逆料的。
君士坦丁堡做為新帝國的首都是偶然還是必然，或許學術界也可以為此打上一場筆仗，但當時的這位皇帝選擇此處，如果用目的論來加以審查，確實是莽撞了些。或許拜占庭這座小城確實是有其卓越之處，它讓這個帝國在千年歷史中，除了內戰外，只淪陷於敵手兩次。但我們看不出其“必然”會成為未來的中心的理由，正如同北京如果不是些偶然的歷史因素，也不見得會有今日的地位。
做為東部帝國的皇帝，雖然政爭跟陰謀依舊存在，但在早期羅馬帝國中的軍人決定一切的現象已經減退，而失敗者也不一定都是非死不可，有的還能活著寫回憶錄，這都是不一樣的特徵。只是在拜占庭千年的歷史以來，能夠跟圖拉真、哈德良等賢君相比的皇帝幾乎是沒有，勉強及上的頂多就是查士丁尼一人，瓦西里二世雖然恢復了帝國在十一世紀的輝煌，但基本上沒有維持多久。直到十五世紀，本書作者曾說，或許如果有位有能者來領導的話，能夠避免帝國徹底的滅亡。不過筆者倒是不怎麼認同，畢竟個人的力量相對於歷史的潮流是有限的，西羅馬帝國滅亡之前也曾經有幾位卓越的將軍，但都改變不了什麼。更況之後就是大航海時代，過去君士坦丁堡做為東西貿易重鎮的地位勢必遭到打擊，一如史實上的威尼斯，那麼，就算它能在穆罕默德二世手中倖存，恐怕也頂多再多拖個十幾年罷了。
不過，作者有提及，拜占庭中期，在經歷七與八世紀的危機後重新強盛，跟軍區制的改革有關係。本書出於篇幅只有簡略扼要的說明，就筆者理解，倒是想起了中國的府兵制跟明朝的衛所，不知可否有異曲同工之妙？
拜占庭曾經輝煌過，也難怪希臘人會念念不忘，想要復興。不過，從近年來這個國家的表現來看，這個夢是越來越遙遠了。最主要的宿敵土耳其人還落井下石的補了一刀，拍出了讓筆者萬分想看的〈1453 Fetih〉，真是“是可忍，孰不可忍”。:P
最後回到本書。
崔艷紅小姐做為拜占庭史的研究者，翻譯本書應該是再適當不過了，可惜內容還是有些語句不甚通順，甚至有誤譯的部分。例如她在某個章節說：「....XXX被刺瞎了雙眼...就此就再也聽不見任何東西了。」筆者讀到此段不禁愣住良久，瞎了眼怎麼會聽不見？哪兒怪怪的吧？？？最後只好無奈拿起立可帶手動訂正。
扣掉這幾個小瑕疵不提，基本上本書依然是部不錯的拜占庭史入門作品，篇幅跟內容都很適合像筆者這樣剛踏進門的外行人，也推薦給諸位。
共勉之。
PS：崔小姐的老師陳志強先生本身也有一本《拜占庭帝國史》跟《拜占庭史研究入門》
筆者也都有收。前一本基本上算是稀有物了。
-------------------
匆匆的重看了一遍，缺點更鮮明了。1.作者的觀點太偏愛跟拜占廷本位，優點放太大，缺陷輕描淡寫。把整個東帝國拉出來成為獨立體系的史觀不是很能接受。2.譯筆跟編輯錯誤頗多，看著無言。 幾年前還是不錯的選擇，現在只能說，如果碰巧看到還是能夠翻翻，當作一個印象或入門。已經有許多出版社計劃要推出像諾維奇或J.B.Bury的晚期羅馬帝國史等大作，本書就該淘汰了。
但話說回來，在中國方面，雖然北大開了一間希臘研究中心，不過目前來說，就筆者所知，關於這方面的研究者主要有徐家玲、陳志強跟崔艷紅等人，似乎都是師生關係。筆者語文能力不佳，還是只能就華文資料打轉。這本《拜占庭簡史》就是由崔艷紅小姐所譯的作品。
原作Warren Treadgold是美國的學者，這本書是他希望寫給感興趣但又不想讀大部頭的一般大眾，以完成拋磚引玉作用，讓更多人關心這塊領域。內容不厚，許多地方都充滿著作者的學術評論觀點，在各個章節採用史實敘述時代背景，然後以介紹社��文化做小結。這樣的寫作方式，對於用來理解拜占庭千年史中，各個時期的變化，是頗具效果的。只是做為一部簡史，當然還都只是“點到為止”，確實是乾淨俐落。
拜占庭帝國，又稱東羅馬帝國。事實上，前者的稱呼是學者加上的，後者的稱呼是當時人主觀認定的，這是個簡單的概念，卻是往往被許多教科書忽略的。猶記得當初筆者閱讀《你一定愛讀的極簡歐洲史》時，該書曾說一個比喻：「如果你穿越回去中世紀，在路上抓個人問他關於羅馬帝國滅亡的感想，一定會把對方問的一頭霧水，因為他們會認為皇帝明明就好好的在君士坦丁堡。」
當然，這也只是個簡單的故事。不過作者試圖點出的是基礎教育所忽略掉的一個初級認知：476年結束的是西羅馬帝國，而不是整個，事實上東部帝國依然做為唯一的皇帝而存在，直到神聖羅馬帝國的出現。會造成這樣的問題，多少也跟重心放在西歐有關，或許君士坦丁堡的陷落會因為土耳其人的壯大而被記上一筆，但往往會說是拜占庭帝國的滅亡，一般人要嘛就不明就底，要嘛就忽然冒出疑竇：「東羅馬帝國去哪了？怎麼改名了？」
而在學術界，“拜占庭”這個名稱的使用雖然是公認的，但從何開始，也是一大爭論。不論如何，從戴克理先開始，羅馬帝國從實質上就已經開始在轉變，基本上，查士丁尼被稱為“最後一位羅馬皇帝”或許也不是沒有道理。但這都是我們後人的觀感，當時人自然是不得而知的，正如同未來的人會怎麼看待在台灣自稱中華民國的吾等，也是非能逆料的。
君士坦丁堡做為新帝國的首都是偶然還是必然，或許學術界也可以為此打上一場筆仗，但當時的這位皇帝選擇此處，如果用目的論來加以審查，確實是莽撞了些。或許拜占庭這座小城確實是有其卓越之處，它讓這個帝國在千年歷史中，除了內戰外，只淪陷於敵手兩次。但我們看不出其“必然”會成為未來的中心的理由，正如同北京如果不是些偶然的歷史因素，也不見得會有今日的地位。
做為東部帝國的皇帝，雖然政爭跟陰謀依舊存在，但在早期羅馬帝國中的軍人決定一切的現象已經減退，而失敗者也不一定都是非死不可，有的還能活著寫回憶錄，這都是不一樣的特徵。只是在拜占庭千年的歷史以來，能夠跟圖拉真、哈德良等賢君相比的皇帝幾乎是沒有，勉強及上的頂多就是查士丁尼一人，瓦西里二世雖然恢復了帝國在十一世紀的輝煌，但基本上沒有維持多久。直到十五世紀，本書作者曾說，或許如果有位有能者來領導的話，能夠避免帝國徹底的滅亡。不過筆者倒是不怎麼認同，畢竟個人的力量相對於歷史的潮流是有限的，西羅馬帝國滅亡之前也曾經有幾位卓越的將軍，但都改變不了什麼。更況之後就是大航海時代，過去君士坦丁堡做為東西貿易重鎮的地位勢必遭到打擊，一如史實上的威尼斯，那麼，就算它能在穆罕默德二世手中倖存，恐怕也頂多再多拖個十幾年罷了。
不過，作者有提及，拜占庭中期，在經歷七與八世紀的危機後重新強盛，跟軍區制的改革有關係。本書出於篇幅只有簡略扼要的說明，就筆者理解，倒是想起了中國的府兵制跟明朝的衛所，不知可否有異曲同工之妙？
拜占庭曾經輝煌過，也難怪希臘人會念念不忘，想要復興。不過，從近年來這個國家的表現來看，這個夢是越來越遙遠了。最主要的宿敵土耳其人還落井下石的補了一刀，拍出了讓筆者萬分想看的〈1453 Fetih〉，真是“是可忍，孰不可忍”。:P
最後回到本書。
崔艷紅小姐做為拜占庭史的研究者，翻譯本書應該是再適當不過了，可惜內容還是有些語句不甚通順，甚至有誤譯的部分。例如她在某個章節說：「....XXX被刺瞎了雙眼...就此就再也聽不見任何東西了。」筆者讀到此段不禁愣住良久，瞎了眼怎麼會聽不見？哪兒怪怪的吧？？？最後只好無奈拿起立可帶手動訂正。
扣掉這幾個小瑕疵不提，基本上本書依然是部不錯的拜占庭史入門作品，篇幅跟內容都很適合像筆者這樣剛踏進門的外行人，也推薦給諸位。
共勉之。
PS：崔小姐的老師陳志強先生本身也有一本《拜占庭帝國史》跟《拜占庭史研究入門》
筆者也都有收。前一本基本上算是稀有物了。
-------------------
匆匆的重看了一遍，缺點更鮮明了。1.作者的觀點太偏愛跟拜占廷本位，優點放太大，缺陷輕描淡寫。把整個東帝國拉出來成為獨立體系的史觀不是很能接受。2.譯筆跟編輯錯誤頗多，看著無言。 幾年前還是不錯的選擇，現在只能說，如果碰巧看到還是能夠翻翻，當作一個印象或入門。已經有許多出版社計劃要推出像諾維奇或J.B.Bury的晚期羅馬帝國史等大作，本書就該淘汰了。
July 16, 2023
A more scholarly read then Lost to the West and less entertaining but still interesting. Treadgold does a better job with dates so you know what is happening when which was nice.
In my review of Lost to the West I forgot the name of the Emperor who was able to get out from under his barbarian generals control which preserved the East to last for another 1k years. This man was Leo I. Leo I, Heraclius, and Basil II are my favorite Byzantine rulers but Justinian and his general Belisarius have to be the greatest.
While this book talked less about the generals it focused more on the economy and it also talked about the Themes which the other book did not discuss. The organization of the army into Themes where soldiers were payed from the land and where in charge of defending that same land made for more motivated soldiers and resulted in a cheaper way to maintain them. I am guessing because it cut out a lot of the corruption. But it also resulted in a lot of rebellions until some of the Themes by Constantinople where broken up.
The two biggest mistakes from this author seem to have been when one ruler disbanded 50k troops of the Themes by Armenia right before the Turks poured through Armenia to take much of Anatolia. The second was when Andronicus II, early in his reign, decided it was too difficult to keep paying regular Byzantine soldiers so he let them go and hired mercenaries who turned on the empire and created more problems. Both these decisions resulted in a 40-50% reduction in the Empire.
The author has the interesting observation that in the Byzantine Empire's long life it never had a Nero, Caligula, Commodus or even a Hitler or Stalin. A rather remarkable achievement.
Orthodoxy compared to it's neighbors was also mostly defensive since they rejected any form of 'Holy War'.
In my review of Lost to the West I forgot the name of the Emperor who was able to get out from under his barbarian generals control which preserved the East to last for another 1k years. This man was Leo I. Leo I, Heraclius, and Basil II are my favorite Byzantine rulers but Justinian and his general Belisarius have to be the greatest.
While this book talked less about the generals it focused more on the economy and it also talked about the Themes which the other book did not discuss. The organization of the army into Themes where soldiers were payed from the land and where in charge of defending that same land made for more motivated soldiers and resulted in a cheaper way to maintain them. I am guessing because it cut out a lot of the corruption. But it also resulted in a lot of rebellions until some of the Themes by Constantinople where broken up.
The two biggest mistakes from this author seem to have been when one ruler disbanded 50k troops of the Themes by Armenia right before the Turks poured through Armenia to take much of Anatolia. The second was when Andronicus II, early in his reign, decided it was too difficult to keep paying regular Byzantine soldiers so he let them go and hired mercenaries who turned on the empire and created more problems. Both these decisions resulted in a 40-50% reduction in the Empire.
The author has the interesting observation that in the Byzantine Empire's long life it never had a Nero, Caligula, Commodus or even a Hitler or Stalin. A rather remarkable achievement.
Orthodoxy compared to it's neighbors was also mostly defensive since they rejected any form of 'Holy War'.
March 20, 2020
A good concise history that makes a first-rate overview and great reference for the dedicated fan of Byzantine history. It's very readable considering the amount of information packed into every paragraph. Warren Treadgold, the author, is an acknowledged expert in the field and it shows. The book's very well organized into different important Byzantine periods.
However, I have to admit the history's very terse. Every paragraph seems stuffed with facts and details; especially as the first centuries are passed. Emperors come and go, religious schisms abound, and cities/territories are lost, recovered, and lost again. Battles that are a big deal elsewhere (Yarmouk and Manzikert, for example) are covered in a sentence or two - and don't seem too important.
That's my feeling: Egypt's lost. Jerusalem. Carthage. Rome. The Balkans. The art of losing isn't too hard to master for the Byzantines in Treadgold's concise history. If you're very careful, you'll stop and say, "Wow. That must've been devastating." If you're not, you'll pass an important moment without realizing it because it feels all the same: the death of a minor, ineffectual emperor or the loss of almost the entire Anatolian peninsula.
I think it's possible to read the book and find the important moments but it would take a lot of effort to id the major emperors, the climactic campaigns, the decisive defeats. Part of that though is the Byzantine's empire ability to roll with the punches and keep going. It would have been helpful if Treadgold had been more explicit in providing us with some "pegs" to hang our memories on. Although he may have deliberately done that to show us there was no decisive defeat or everlasting victory but a history of back and forth. Use the maps, btw, to see the empire shrink.
However, I have to admit the history's very terse. Every paragraph seems stuffed with facts and details; especially as the first centuries are passed. Emperors come and go, religious schisms abound, and cities/territories are lost, recovered, and lost again. Battles that are a big deal elsewhere (Yarmouk and Manzikert, for example) are covered in a sentence or two - and don't seem too important.
That's my feeling: Egypt's lost. Jerusalem. Carthage. Rome. The Balkans. The art of losing isn't too hard to master for the Byzantines in Treadgold's concise history. If you're very careful, you'll stop and say, "Wow. That must've been devastating." If you're not, you'll pass an important moment without realizing it because it feels all the same: the death of a minor, ineffectual emperor or the loss of almost the entire Anatolian peninsula.
I think it's possible to read the book and find the important moments but it would take a lot of effort to id the major emperors, the climactic campaigns, the decisive defeats. Part of that though is the Byzantine's empire ability to roll with the punches and keep going. It would have been helpful if Treadgold had been more explicit in providing us with some "pegs" to hang our memories on. Although he may have deliberately done that to show us there was no decisive defeat or everlasting victory but a history of back and forth. Use the maps, btw, to see the empire shrink.
February 4, 2025
Kitap, harika bir biçimde, kısa ve gerçekten net anlatımla Bizans’ın genel bir tarihini okuyucuya sunuyor. Kitap, isminin hakkını veriyor ve kısa bir Doğu Roma tarihini okuyucuya sunuyor. Dolayısıyla hakkında söylenecek pek bir şey yok.
Ancak, kitabın ilk baskısında göze sıkça batan, okurken rahatsız eden, anlam kaymalarına da neden olan bariz çeviri ve yazım hatalarıyla karşılaşıyorsunuz. Ayriyetten İmparator Heraclius döneminde gerçekleşen Arap-Bizans Savaşları’nın geçtiği sayfalar kaymış, dolayısıyla o kısımlarda okurken çok zorlandım. Yine de bunlar bir kenara bırakılırsa, akıcı anlatım, nispeten iyi çeviri ve kaliteli bir giriş kitabı.
Ancak, kitabın ilk baskısında göze sıkça batan, okurken rahatsız eden, anlam kaymalarına da neden olan bariz çeviri ve yazım hatalarıyla karşılaşıyorsunuz. Ayriyetten İmparator Heraclius döneminde gerçekleşen Arap-Bizans Savaşları’nın geçtiği sayfalar kaymış, dolayısıyla o kısımlarda okurken çok zorlandım. Yine de bunlar bir kenara bırakılırsa, akıcı anlatım, nispeten iyi çeviri ve kaliteli bir giriş kitabı.
June 25, 2020
This book was assigned to me back in college for my History of Byzantium class at Saint Louis University, taught by the author himself. It had enough of an impact on me that I've kept the book as part of my primary collection. Concise is accurate: the book dives into the nature of the Byzantine Empire, with a strong focus on the economic and political issues that arose within the empire. Overall an excellent book to read if you need an overarching view of one of the major players in the late Antiquity to Early Medieval period.
December 17, 2022
A very brief introduction to the Byzantine Empire (as the name suggests). Not the greatest of introductions to the subject, but it will do the job of giving an introductory narrative to the Byzantines. After the discussions of the Fourth Crusade, the narrative seems to fizzle out.
3/5. Serviceable introduction, most likely there are better alternatives available.
3/5. Serviceable introduction, most likely there are better alternatives available.
June 10, 2018
Ευκολοδιαβαστη σύνοψη του συνόλου της ιστορίας της Ανατολικής Ρωμαϊκής Αυτοκρατορίας μέχρι και την άλωση με κάποιους ατοπους παραλληλισμους στην σύνοψη και κάποιες αβάσιμες πολιτικές τοποθετησεις/συμπεράσματα.
March 4, 2019
A good introductory history but not thorough enough for detailed study.
November 1, 2023
Excellent book to get the big picture of the history of the Eastern Roman Empire.
May 11, 2015
Arido
Il libro ambisce ad essere “una concisa storia di Bisanzio” (come nel titolo originale), ma lo stesso Autore riconosce che “questo libro indaga lo stesso campo della mia più vasta History of Byzantine State and Society”. Se vuole essere qualcosa di più di un’analisi delle strutture statuali e societarie di Bisanzio, ho l'impressione che non ci riesca compiutamente.
Condensare 1177 anni di storia in 310 pagine non e’ certo cosa facile. Dovendo sfoltire rispetto alle 1044 pagine della sua opera principale, Treadgold non ha voluto lasciare fuori i fatti, che risultano quindi affastellati e sterili, ne’ le considerazioni su società e cultura bizantine – che pur risultando a mio avviso la parte più interessante, mancano di approfondimento e contestualizzazione. Ha quindi deciso di lasciare fuori essenzialmente tutto il quadro più vasto ed ulteriore rispetto agli equilibri interni all’impero. Di conseguenza, sembra quasi che l’intera storia di Bisanzio sia stata un mero succedersi di battaglie e intrighi per il potere, come del resto vorrebbe la vulgata.
La scarsa contestualizzazione mi sembra il peccato maggiore dell’opera. Tutto ciò che non riguarda direttamente Bisanzio e’ trascurato. Ad esempio, l’ascesa di Carlo Magno e la sua incoronazione vengono sbrigativamente menzionate con le seguenti parole: “ Nell’800 il papa proclamo’ imperatore a Roma il re dei Franchi Carlo Magno, basandosi sull’argomentazione che, poiché una donna (Irene) non poteva essere imperatore, il trono romano era vacante”. Semplicistico e quindi errato. I longobardi, il regno dei franchi, lo stesso papato e tutto ciò che non sia Bisanzio semplicemente non esistono nel libro, se non quando si trovano a combattere l’impero o a competere con esso, o quando irrompono in oriente come i “latini” nel 1204. Le relazioni estere di Bisanzio e gli equilibri di potenza nel quadro più vasto semplicemente non si trovano, se non relegate a notiziole fattuali, allorché a mio avviso costituiscono un cardine della storia dell’impero d’oriente (come di qualsiasi entità statuale). Alleanze e guerre sono infatti meramente citate; “accadono” - quasi fossero fatti della natura, anziché le risultanti di complessi equilibri e percezioni, gravide di conseguenze ben oltre il mero fatto ed i soli protagonisti. In tal modo, il libro risponde perlopiù alla domanda “cosa”, ma quasi mai al “perché”.
Divagazioni:
Treadgold (pagina 171) definisce Teofilo (imperatore dall’829 al 842) “uno dei piu’ interessanti sovrani bizantini”. Peccato non ne spieghi le ragioni, probabilmente rimaste all’interno della sua fatica maggiore e che ho inutilmente cercato nelle pagine successive, trovandole solo nei due testi che lo stesso Treadgold nell’introduzione snobba (Ostrogorsky, definito datato, e Norwich, sprezzantemente etichettato “divulgativo”). Mi rimarra’ per sempre il dubbio se Treadgold intendesse riferirsi al filo-arabismo di Teofilo, alla sua abitudine di girare per Costantinopoli in incognito come Harun al-Rashid o semplicemente agli aneddotici automi nella sala delle udienze della Magnaura. Osservo peraltro che l’annotazione ricorda molto il “datato” Ostrogorsky, che (guarda caso) scriveva nel 1963 (terza edizione): “Teofilo non fu un sovrano importante, ma una personalita’ estremamente interessante”. Ma lui (il datato Ostrogorsky) ne spiega le ragioni nelle tre pagine successive.
Il libro ambisce ad essere “una concisa storia di Bisanzio” (come nel titolo originale), ma lo stesso Autore riconosce che “questo libro indaga lo stesso campo della mia più vasta History of Byzantine State and Society”. Se vuole essere qualcosa di più di un’analisi delle strutture statuali e societarie di Bisanzio, ho l'impressione che non ci riesca compiutamente.
Condensare 1177 anni di storia in 310 pagine non e’ certo cosa facile. Dovendo sfoltire rispetto alle 1044 pagine della sua opera principale, Treadgold non ha voluto lasciare fuori i fatti, che risultano quindi affastellati e sterili, ne’ le considerazioni su società e cultura bizantine – che pur risultando a mio avviso la parte più interessante, mancano di approfondimento e contestualizzazione. Ha quindi deciso di lasciare fuori essenzialmente tutto il quadro più vasto ed ulteriore rispetto agli equilibri interni all’impero. Di conseguenza, sembra quasi che l’intera storia di Bisanzio sia stata un mero succedersi di battaglie e intrighi per il potere, come del resto vorrebbe la vulgata.
La scarsa contestualizzazione mi sembra il peccato maggiore dell’opera. Tutto ciò che non riguarda direttamente Bisanzio e’ trascurato. Ad esempio, l’ascesa di Carlo Magno e la sua incoronazione vengono sbrigativamente menzionate con le seguenti parole: “ Nell’800 il papa proclamo’ imperatore a Roma il re dei Franchi Carlo Magno, basandosi sull’argomentazione che, poiché una donna (Irene) non poteva essere imperatore, il trono romano era vacante”. Semplicistico e quindi errato. I longobardi, il regno dei franchi, lo stesso papato e tutto ciò che non sia Bisanzio semplicemente non esistono nel libro, se non quando si trovano a combattere l’impero o a competere con esso, o quando irrompono in oriente come i “latini” nel 1204. Le relazioni estere di Bisanzio e gli equilibri di potenza nel quadro più vasto semplicemente non si trovano, se non relegate a notiziole fattuali, allorché a mio avviso costituiscono un cardine della storia dell’impero d’oriente (come di qualsiasi entità statuale). Alleanze e guerre sono infatti meramente citate; “accadono” - quasi fossero fatti della natura, anziché le risultanti di complessi equilibri e percezioni, gravide di conseguenze ben oltre il mero fatto ed i soli protagonisti. In tal modo, il libro risponde perlopiù alla domanda “cosa”, ma quasi mai al “perché”.
Divagazioni:
Treadgold (pagina 171) definisce Teofilo (imperatore dall’829 al 842) “uno dei piu’ interessanti sovrani bizantini”. Peccato non ne spieghi le ragioni, probabilmente rimaste all’interno della sua fatica maggiore e che ho inutilmente cercato nelle pagine successive, trovandole solo nei due testi che lo stesso Treadgold nell’introduzione snobba (Ostrogorsky, definito datato, e Norwich, sprezzantemente etichettato “divulgativo”). Mi rimarra’ per sempre il dubbio se Treadgold intendesse riferirsi al filo-arabismo di Teofilo, alla sua abitudine di girare per Costantinopoli in incognito come Harun al-Rashid o semplicemente agli aneddotici automi nella sala delle udienze della Magnaura. Osservo peraltro che l’annotazione ricorda molto il “datato” Ostrogorsky, che (guarda caso) scriveva nel 1963 (terza edizione): “Teofilo non fu un sovrano importante, ma una personalita’ estremamente interessante”. Ma lui (il datato Ostrogorsky) ne spiega le ragioni nelle tre pagine successive.
January 29, 2014
O carte scrisa intr-un mod aerisit. Iti permite sa vezi societatea bizantina dezvoltandu-se treptat si nu esti neaparat obligat sa intri in evenimente care nu reprezinta interesul momentan. Expunerea este exhaustiva descriind in culori vii dezvoltarea politica a imperiului, figurile importante si in ultimele parti viata sociala si culturala a acestei civilizatii fascinante. Pe alocuri se remarca mici accente de umor fin ironic.
Este o carte pe care ar trebui sa o citeasca o persoana care doreste sa inteleaga mai pe larg Imperiul bizantin. Poate fi de asemenea o unealta pentru cercetatorul istoriei oferind informatii precise despre Bizant intr-o forma concentrata si usor de citit.
Este o carte pe care ar trebui sa o citeasca o persoana care doreste sa inteleaga mai pe larg Imperiul bizantin. Poate fi de asemenea o unealta pentru cercetatorul istoriei oferind informatii precise despre Bizant intr-o forma concentrata si usor de citit.
December 22, 2016
It's a good book if you're interested in Byzantine history. However, the political history is rather dry, plus the author seems to worship Byzantine culture.
November 30, 2021
Troppo duro con i bizantini, troppo poco gossip di corte
Read
January 6, 2019From beginning to end they knew they were Romans. Later commentators, like Gibbon, seek to denigrate their achievements.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews