Ιστορία της Βυζαντινής Αυτοκρατορίας B΄

by Alexander Vasiliev, Δημοσθένης Σαβράμης (Translator)

Το έργο αυτό του διαπρεπούς Ρώσου ιστορικού και βυζαντινολόγου, που θεωρείται κορυφαίο στο είδος του, βάζει σε τάξη με ακρίβεια μια τόσο πολύπλοκη ιστορική περίοδο, όπως η Βυζαντινή.
Αρχίζοντας από την ίδρυση της Κωνσταντινουπόλεως και φθάνοντας έως την πτώση της, ζωντανεύει χίλια χρόνια ιστορίας. Αναλύει την κοινωνική, οικονομική και πνευματική πορεία από την αρχαία εποχή στον νεώτερο κόσμο και δίνει μια διαυγέστερη εικόνα του βυζαντινού βίου και πολιτισμού.
Τις ρίζες του νεώτερου ελληνικού έθνους που δεν μπορεί κανένας να αγνοεί.

ΤΟ ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΟ ΚΑΙ ΟΙ ΣΤΑΥΡΟΦΟΡΙΕΣ
8. Η ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑΤΟΡΙΑ ΤΗΣ ΝΙΚΑΙΑΣ (1204-1261)
9. Η ΠΤΩΣΗ ΤΟΥ ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΟΥ - Η ΕΠΟΧΗ ΤΩΝ ΠΑΛΑΙΟΛΟΓΩΝ

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Medieval

440 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1935

About the author

Alexander Alexandrovich Vasiliev (Russian: Александр Александрович Васильев) was considered the foremost authority on Byzantine history and culture in the mid-20th century. His History of the Byzantine Empire (vol. 1–2, 1928) remains one of a few comprehensive accounts of the entire Byzantine history, on the par with those authored by Edward Gibbon and Fyodor Uspensky.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexand...

Reviews

[Gille Liath · Rating 3 out of 5]

Beginning with a 40-page resume of literature on the subject (a very odd way to start a book, and even odder he includes his own book in it!), and making liberal use of quotations from other works, this is more a survey of histories than a real history in its own right. It strongly espouses the view that Byzantium was a continuation of the Roman Empire - not even the 'Eastern' Roman Empire - saying that to use this term is 'to misrepresent in the grossest manner the theory of the imperial constitution' and that 'no empire fell' when the Western line of emperors ended in 476AD.

That is all very well, but the *practice* after the division of the Empire - although the East offered the West support at times against the barbarian invaders - was for each part to behave as a separate state which developed its own locus of interest and consulted that first. Actually this in the end was of more significance than the fall of the West - an event the reality of which it is simply folly to deny - and served as the blueprint for the development of the Holy Roman Empire and, ultimately, the Western world in general and its strained relations with the East as represented, in particular, by Russia. And one can't help wondering whether behind Vasiliev's ecumenical assertions on behalf of Byzantium is the instinctive traditional feeling of Russia that it has inherited those claims and is destined to lead (if not rule) humanity - as America instinctively (and indeed unconsciously) feels it has inherited those of the West. Far from it never having happened, the division of the Roman Empire is still very much with us today.

I've noticed some other peculiarities reflecting Vasiliev's own background, such as referring to the 'migration' rather than 'invasion' of Slavs into the Empire.

Well, I've tried those by JB Bury, Runciman, Cyril Mango, JJ Norwich, Ostrogorsky, Gibbon, and this. They all have their points; but the search for the definitive history of Byzantium goes on. One is basically unsympathetic, another too dry, some tell you the background but not the history, and that of Norwich is basically just a retailing of court gossip. What I'd like to see, but what I don't think exists, is a book like Robin Lane Fox's The Classical World; or a book at the level of Runciman's Fall of Constantinople (somewhat less detailed, obviously), but covering the whole course of the Empire.

[Σταύρος Παυλίδης · Rating 5 out of 5]

Υπέροχο βιβλίο αν και περιγράφει μια θλιβερή περίοδο.Την παρακμή και τελικά την πτώση της μεγάλης,Ελληνικής Αυτοκρατορίας.Είναι ενδιαφέρον να διαβάζεις Ελληνική ιστορία γραμμένη από ξένο συγγραφέα.Δε μου άρεσε η πολύ μικρή σε έκταση (2-3 σελίδες μόνο) περιγραφή της αλώσεως της Πόλης. Κορυφαίου γεγονότος της Ελληνικής ιστορίας.Επίσης ,στο τέλος του βιβλίου , ο συγγραφέας προσπαθεί να υποβαθμίσει κατά κάποιον τρόπο την συνεισφορά των Ελλήνων λογίων στην ιταλική και κατ΄έπέκταση ευρωπαική αναγέννηση.Βέβαια ο ισχυρισμός του αυτός καταρρίπτεται από τα λόγια διάσημων λατίνων λογίων που ο ίδιος παραθέτει...Οι ανθρωποι αυτοί , αναγνωρίζουν το σημαντικότατο ρόλο των Ελλήνων Δασκάλων στην Αναγέννηση και το Διαφωτισμό της Ευρώπης.

[Andrew Otis · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating and quite dense look at the Byzantine Empire, mostly looking at the ruling classes. Definitely took awhile to read this, along with Volume I. Since this was written quite a long time ago, I wonder how perspectives on the Byzantines have changed since. My favorite chapter was the last, on the Byzantine contributions to the Renaissance.

[Garriguscarraig · Rating 4 out of 5]

Finished these twin volumes & enjoyed them thoroughly. I got a little bored with the cultural history sections in the second volume; not sure why. Anyway, the story is such an amazing one that you really can't lose. The fact that the Roman polity lasted for 2200 years is remarkable, odd, & astounding. And lost on us English-speakers, because once the city of Rome falls in AD 476, we consider the state to be done. Simply not true: it's the same entity, & the Byzantines & Western Europeans alike considered it as such into the twelfth century at least. How they were able to limp on as long as they did, without a whole lot of national renewal after Justinian, stuck in their ways, lacking in vigor, can best be explained, I think, by blind luck.

So, yes, good story. I'm now reading Livy's treatment of the beginning of Rome (Trojan War to 386 BC), & will get around to another Byzantine history, probably Ostrogorsky's, one of these days.

[Marks54 · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was the basic reference in a year long course I took on Byzantine History at Gerogetown - a long time ago. It was a good book, but it is a survey of the Byzantine Empire - on its downward slide. So there is a lot of information to process. I still remember the Byzantines today, so I guess it was an effective class.

[Dinko · Rating 2 out of 5]

Has somewhat more historical and interesting content than Volume I, but is still written in the same clumsy style. Reads more like an outline of ideas to develop later than any kind of historical overview.

[Hancock · Rating 4 out of 5]

Volume 2 is not as compelling as volume 1, perhaps because volume 2 describes the empire in decline.