Streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood: The Rise and Fall of Byzantium, 955 A.D. to the First Crusade

Onassis Series in Hellenic Culture

by Anthony Kaldellis

In the second half of the tenth century, Byzantium embarked on a series of spectacular conquests: first in the southeast against the Arabs, then in Bulgaria, and finally in the Georgian and Armenian lands. By the early eleventh century, the empire was the most powerful state in the Mediterranean. It was also expanding economically, demographically, and, in time, intellectually as well. Yet this imperial project came to a crashing collapse fifty years later, when political disunity, fiscal mismanagement, and defeat at the hands of the Seljuks in the east and the Normans in the west brought an end to Byzantine hegemony. By 1081, not only was its dominance of southern Italy, the Balkans, Caucasus, and northern Mesopotamia over but Byzantium's very existence was threatened.

How did this dramatic transformation happen? Based on a close examination of the relevant sources, this history-the first of its kind in over a century-offers a new reconstruction of the key events and crucial reigns as well as a different model for understanding imperial politics and wars, both civil and foreign. In addition to providing a badly needed narrative of this critical period of Byzantine history, Streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood offers new interpretations of key topics relevant to the medieval era. The narrative unfolds in three parts: the first covers the years 955-1025, a period of imperial conquest and consolidation of authority under the great emperor Basil "the Bulgar-Slayer." The second (1025-1059) examines the dispersal of centralized authority in Constantinople as well as the emergence of new foreign enemies (Pechenegs, Seljuks, and Normans). The last section chronicles the spectacular collapse of the empire during the second half of the eleventh century, concluding with a look at the First Crusade and its consequences for Byzantine relations with the powers of Western Europe. This briskly paced and thoroughly investigated narrative vividly brings to life one of the most exciting and transformative eras of medieval history.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Medieval History, Medieval, Audiobook, European History, Ancient History

440 pages, Paperback

First published July 10, 2017

About the author

Ph.D. University of Michigan, Department of History (2001)
Anthony Kaldellis’ research explores the history, culture, and literature of the east Roman empire from antiquity to the fifteenth century. An earlier phase of it focused on the reception of ancient Hellenic culture, for example on how authors conceived their projects in relation to classical models (Procopius of Caesarea, 2004), as well as the history of identities (Hellenism in Byzantium, 2007), monuments (The Christian Parthenon, 2009), and genres (Ethnography after Antiquity, 2013). A second phase brought to light the enduring Roman matrices of Byzantine life and thought, focusing on its political sphere (The Byzantine Republic, 2015) and ethnic identities (Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium, 2019). He has translated into English the works of many medieval Greek writers, such as Prokopios, Genesios, Psellos, Attaleiates, and Laonikos Chalkokondyles. His own monographs have been translated into other modern languages, including Turkish, French, Romanian, Russian, and Greek. In 2019, he created the first academic podcast for his field, Byzantium & Friends. He has just published a new, comprehensive history of Byzantium, The New Roman Empire (2023), which embeds social, economic, religious, and demographic developments within a lively narrative framework.

Reviews

[Edward Dunn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Much longer and more dense than I had thought when I ordered it; it's hardly a relaxing read. The history is well written though and illuminates the unique ideas, advantages and problems the Byzantine state had. It also corrects a lot of ideological interpretations of the period with a much more post-modern approach that turns the figures from pawns in a narrative to humans.

[Zachary · Rating 5 out of 5]

In the late 10th century, the Byzantine empire was on a remarkable upswing. Following slow consolidation, stabilization, military reform, and economic and demographic expansion since the early ninth century, a series of brilliant martial emperors, Nikephoros Phokas, John Tzimiskes, and Basil II undertook the most remarkable campaign of conquest and expansion since Justinian's, more than 4 centuries earlier. In only 70 years, it expanded past the Taurus mountain strongholds that had guarded it since the Arab conquests of the seventh century, coming eventually to annex Armenia, and even ended the Bulgarian empire than had troubled it since the 680s in a war that was longer than any in Roman history. By the end, the empire was far and away the most powerful Christian state, dominating its neighbors. And yet, by the accession of Alexios I in 1081, it was on the edge of collapse. What happened? Kaldellis, who is rapidly becoming one of my favorite Byzantine historians, tells the story in this wonderful, scintillating, and readable book, his first narrative history. Being Kaldellis, the story is told with a healthy dose of reassessment and revision. Basil II comes across as far more intelligent and politically savvy than other accounts I've read, for instance. More profoundly different are the accounts of his successors, most of whom come across far better than they have been described in any book I've yet read. Constantine VIII, Theodora, Zoe, all of whom I had the idea of as doddering fools come across as much steadier and intelligent in their governance. Even more rehabilitation is given to Constantine Monomachos, who is shown to have been more engaged and active than we have been led to believe, though Kaldellis didn't quite convince me that he was really one of the best emperors the empire ever had. So if the emperors were not the craven idiots who lost the peace that they are traditionally described as being, what accounts for the collapse. Kaldellis' answer is that the empire hit the proverbial perfect storm of bad events. After Basil II, the imperial position was much weaker than it had been in a long time, which made emperors weaker, which resulted in compromises that weakened them further. Moreover, there was not the sort of string of senior military emperors that marked the tenth century who were able to align the military and civil servants. The result was that discontent developed among senior officers that led to rebellions and instability just as the empire came to face Norman pressure in the West, Pecheneg incursions into the Balkans, and, most significantly, massive armies of Turks using unfamiliar tactics invading from the East. Kaldellis makes a good case that Manzikert was not in itself as disastrous as it is often portrayed as having been. Rather, it's importance lay in how it led to rebellion and civil war that kept the eastern armies too occupied to mount an effective resistance. Moreover, Norman mercenaries further undercut efforts at a defense by a power grab in western Anatolia. Amidst the military and political turmoil, the more salient question is really that of how the empire didn't collapse entirely - the question that keeps coming up over and over again throughout Roman history. But it didn't. Even beaten back as it was, it retained enough flex, ingenuity to bounce back after a great leader, Alexios I, rose to the occasion. All in all, a remarkable story told well in a new way from a fresh perspective. This is a brilliant book.

[Andrew Dockrill · Rating 5 out of 5]

Streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood examines the rise and fall of the Macedonian Dynasty and then ends with the Comnenos dynasty at a break neck pace! The book was very easy to read and quite enjoyable, it read much in the same way as an Adrian Goldsworthy book-more specifically his book "How Rome Fell". I say that because much like Goldsworthy's approach, Anthony Kaldellis goes through the history of Byzantium beginning as the title indicates at 955 AD with the emergence of Basil I, and ending around the 1100's. As this time passes he recounts the stories of all the emperors and empresses and their dramatic rise and fall, and does so at a very quick pace.

This book was extremely helpful for two reasons; the first being that it definitely fills in the blanks of a rather neglected part of history which is the Byzantine period of the Eastern Roman empire, in which their is not a great deal known or recorded, compared to the western Roman Empire. The second part is that Anthony Kaldellis takes a revisionist approach in trying to correct many misunderstood truths and certainties about the state of the Roman Empire. For example where historians had condoned Basil II for some of his policies which would ultimately handicap his successors against the rise of the Seljuk Turks in the East, Anthony believes instead that this was not the case and that Basil should not be blamed since the Romans were reacting the best they ultimately could do new aggressive societies on 3 different fronts, the others being the Pechenegs and the Normans.

For myself, the book was definitely a good reference book that I will definitely go back to as I try and increase of knowledge of the Byzantines as there are a lot of emperors to remember and while I did manage to retain many of them like Nikephoros Phokas and John Tzimikes and most of the Constantines such as Monomachos and Bringas and Romanos Diogenes, I will definitely have to refresh myself. I will likely still consider Warren Treadgold as the keeper of the Byzantine flame, but that is not to take anything away from Anthony and his work here as he clearly is well versed on this period in history.

To conclude, the book was fantastic I was leaning more towards just a 5 star rating but thinking back on it, I must say that I am very happy I took the time to read this and if I am left with that feeling that it has to be the highest praise for that. I would still say that it was written for an audience who is decently versed on the emergence of the Muslims and the Turks in the East and their societal structure and hierarchy, while also having a good eye for geography as maps were not a plenty in this book. To the undergrad or grad student this book may be skimming the surface a little bit as Kaldellis does not go into tremendous detail on each reign and may come away finding the book a bit light but still very enjoyable.

[Jeremiah Lorrig · Rating 3 out of 5]

While the topic is quite interesting, the author uses the Greek terms and names (mostly). And while that is super good if you want to deep dive, it left me struggling to remember who was who, what ranks are what, and what exactly is going on.

There were some gems.

My favorite line is:

According to -some Greek name- who had a “propensity to lament everything…”
I know people who have a propensity to lament everything. 🤣

[Nick · Rating 2 out of 5]

I gave up on this one.

Simply put, the book fell into the "one dammed thing after another" trap most chapters have little to no analysis of the why's and how's instead sticking to a solid when and who. If you are looking for a book that spent's 90% of its words on simply telling what happened but offer little else....

I Find books like this frustrating because to me it is the most lazy hard work effort possible. It takes a lot of work to link all the conquest's and battles, coming and going's of emperors and generals in one single text, but does that stick by you as a reader? Does it do it anything but blur into a mess with little meaning? Where is the narrative? Well to be fair Kaldellis does say that the emperor's did react mostly, favorably at that, when opportunities arose but the thing is where was the analysis? Give me an overview of theories that claim there was a bigger agenda and counter it with your own theory with evidence.

Kaldellis does this quit a few times in fact, giving us a statement that begs for decent arguments and evidence. For example "the average roman held negative stereotypes about Armenians" but that's it nothing else on this?? Like what were these stereotypes? How did this affect recruitment? And the whole settlement of Armenians in the conquered areas in Anatolia? Then, frustratingly, the literal next page he writes on how silly it is for authors to assume people still felt Armenian and Bulgarian after their families had been part of the imperial elite for a generation. I mean, it is not that these two are mutually exclusive but by all the gods elaborate on this!!! I agree that it is blatantly nationalistic drivel to assume people can't be absorbed into a new political entity and embrace new identities. The whole history of the Roman empire is all about these new identities sprouted from the new imperial context (illyrians and Gauls as prime examples).

Almost everything about the Byzantine history is about this inevitable fall of the empire. Whether it is the 1453 fall or the 1204 fall. The other big theme of the Byzantine empire narrative is the "not good enough theme" Basil II and Jusitinian, Alexis Kommenos get this whole aura of genius but at the same time this aura is tainted by a veneer of inadequacy. The two are closely interlinked, the empire's fall was inevitable because they weren't good enough or they weren't good enough and thus empire's fall was inevitable. It is a self evident narrative that is boring and lazy, Kaldellis does fall in this same trap when it comes to Basil II. He's great yet not great enough. Once more an overfocus on the super autocrat as the sole reason for the empire's success or failure, relegating any structural weakness or strengths to a second fiddle.

At about halfway through I had enough. I have little to no recollection of most of the book I read up to that point and that is proof enough for me that the book does not deliver.

What a shame.

[L · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent book. Kaldellis writes with a subtle humor and has well-articulated pushbacks against what he persuasively suggests are incorrect interpretations of the period.

It’s a serious work of scholarship, but a highly readable one. Machinations and politicking of various Michaels and Ioannes and Basils are able to be picked apart, as are the motivations of outside polities interacting with Romania. It’s an achievement to separate all these competing interests and give them their due and still keep a narrative going. I’m impressed.

My only complaint is the period of the first crusade only filled the epilogue, rather than being its own section. But I suspect Kaldellis will return to the subject, and there are other volumes that address this period.

I will probably read this again immediately. One of my favorite historical works in years.

[Christopher · Rating 4 out of 5]

A little covered period of Byzantine history (in English anyway) gets a thorough look here. Including the reign of my favorite post-fall of the west emperor, Basil II. While a bit more information on tactical evolution for military units would have been welcome, this is still an extremely useful and thorough investigation of one of the more unjustly ignored periods of Anatolian and Balkan history.

[Katrina · Rating 2 out of 5]

The reviews and cover tout the book as being accessible and easy to read for someone without a Byzantine background. Instead I found it to be a dense recitation of male names, dates, and battles with little or no focus on the humans involved. The author bounces around in time and unfortunately many of his male subjects have the same name so figuring out where/when/who is involved in a given chapter is very difficult.
I read history for the human interest, so this book didn't work for me.

[Thomas Ayre · Rating 5 out of 5]

A well written and well researched book that goes back to the original sources to show what we know, mostly how little we know about the Byzantine revanchment in the late 10 century. It challenges many of the theories that surround this period by using primary and secondary sources from the time. An essential for anyone wishing to know more about the period.

[Anubis · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think i found one of my new favorite authors.

I have to say i really loved the approach of Kaldellis to this book. I like the approach to it so much that i'm going to be skeptical about reading Byzantine history from other authors.

The book is an overview of the later part of the Macedonian dynasty, when the rulers of Byzantium rose again to the pre-eminent power in Europe at the time. However, the period in question is probably one of the least understood in European history. We are basically still in the "Dark Ages", so sources and our understanding of the period is quite scarce.

Given that the sources are scarce, it's hard to put a realistic picture of the time. The modern author is not only fighting the bias of the limited sources, but also the interpretation of modern historians. Here is where Kaldellis really shines.

He is consulting all available sources on the Roman Empire in this time; the Roman ones, the Western European ones, but also, very importantly, Eastern sources as well. The picture then suddenly becomes clearer, but the author is also not afraid of coming to his own conclusions.

For example, he often logically refutes an accepted dogma; sure, it's the only report we have from the time, but with detective work he proves a lot of "facts" wrong, or at least highly unlikely. I'm really happy that i'm given the chance to make my own opinion, with the author explaining how he came to the conclusion, and not simply being told of it as a fact that happened despite shaky grounds.

He is also not afraid to go against standard accepted truths about the Roman Empire in the medieval ages. I especially like his approach to the much maligned "Anatolian Magnates", who were such a big issue in Byzantine historiography. Overall he tries to avoid the Western look on the issues; it's easy to agree with the author when he tells how modern historians usually more versed in the feudal west simply tried to join the ideas together with Byzantium. My personal feeling from what i've read is that the medieval history of greater Europe was basically divided into 2 worlds from the historians perspective; the Christian West, and the Islamic East. However Byzantium was a completely separate entity and deserves it's respect as such. You can't simply put them under the West or East and hope everything works out with the narrative.

Kaldellis is really aware of the propaganda on every side, from the past to present when discussing history. Without going into spoilers, some people in his account are rehabilitated from being deemed "terrible" for the history of Byzantium, and the story flows well.

The one "issue" with this type of approach is that the narrative swings less. We suddenly don't have amazing Emperors under which the Empire thrived and people danced and drank every day and were thankful to be under such a monarch, and we don't of course also have imbeciles under who's reigns 100 years of progress were destroyed and everything went wrong.

The result of this is that there is less drama in the narrative, less shocking twists, and arguably less of story to tell. However this is an awesome approach for a history book, and i'm already ordering other books from the author. He is obviously a real expert on Romania, and knows what he is writing about.

[Malhar Mahurkar · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a brilliant narrative history spanning the military expansion of the Byzantine empire through the tenth century under the various soldier emperors before turning to the political crisis that resulted in the reversal of these gains and the dire situation that the Empire found itself on the eve of the First Crusade.

Kaldellis is a skilled storyteller, with complete mastery of the sources who in the midst of narrative sections, carefully situates his interpretation of the sources within the broader historiography.

In particular, I found his rejection of the "feudalisation" thesis highly compelling. The Byzantine Empire was not undone, in Kaldellis's view, by the rise of landowning magnates who marshalled resources to rival the power of the Byzantine state - the classic of view of generations of Byzantinists. Instead, he argues that it was undermined by repeated crises of imperial legitimacy and the consequential race for power this triggered amongst various generals, some of whom were from landed families and others who were not. Kaldellis argues that these rebel emperors were not seeking to destroy the Byzantine state but instead take over it and were operating within a well established set of norms and practices. As he astutely points out, no emperors from magnate backgrounds enacted policies overwhelmingly in favour of this apparent socio-economic class once they donned the purple. The crux for the reversal of fortunes in the 11th century was declining imperial legitimacy coupled with the rise of three key external threats: the Seljuks, the Normans and the Pechenegs.

Taking a step back, this is a serious work of scholarship but well-written and often humorous. The narrative itself is fascinating and serves to undermine the now extremely outdated decline and fall Gibbonian view. Under a series of capable emperors including Nikephorus Phokas, John Tsmiskes and Basil II, the empire pushed its frontiers back towards Syria and essentially recaptured all of Asia Minor, making the Armenian and Georgian kingdoms on its eastern frontier client states. Kaldellis clearly puts the outdated narrative of steady, linear decline from the 7th century Arab conquests to 1453 into the rubbish bin.

Additionally, there is a hugely interesting cast of characters and further context provided. Beyond the frontiers of the empire, it was fascinating to learn about the splintering Abbasid Caliphate and the rise of various semi-independent emirs on the Syria / Cilicia borderlands, the mercenary turned conquering Normans in Sicily (and later Asia Minor), the repeated battles with the Bulgars and, of course, the rise of the Turks.

Fantastic book, and essential reading for all Byzantine empire nerds.

[Antonio · Rating 5 out of 5]

Historia militar bizantina desde los grandes emperadores del final del siglo X hasta el emperador que recibió a los cruzados, Alexios I.
El autor además de contar los principales eventos realiza una crítica sobre las ideas concebidas alrededor de los estudios bizantino, presentando y criticando dichas teorías, referenciando, en lo posible, a las fuentes primarias del período.
Sobre todo, niega la famosa lucha entre dos grupos de aristócratas, una suerte de agrupación civil contra otra militar, rehabilita ciertas figuras denostadas por ciertas fuentes, como los emperadores Miguel IV y Constantino IX, y reevalúa el papel de los cruzados.
Una lectura muy recomendable.

[Luke · Rating 5 out of 5]

Listened to it on audio book, which can be hard for a history, but I really enjoyed it. It was well written and well paced. I have learned so much more about Byzantine history.

[Mindy Burroughs · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely loved it. Interesting to read, I learned so much. Also I’m sad it’s over.

[Eileen Iciek · Rating 4 out of 5]

Anthony Kaldellis is a favorite historian of mine. I loved his book, Psellus and the Patriarchs, done with Ioannis Polemis, as well as The Byzantine Republic. Excellent work.

With this book, however, I have a difference of opinion on the Emperor Konstantinos IX Monomachos. The author comes across as an apologist for this particular emperor in much of this book, saying "Did he squander money? We cannot know." I will give Kaldellis the benefit of some doubt. We cannot know 100% for sure, given the thousand years that lie between us and the reign of Monomachos. But we do have some evidence that would support the conclusion that Monomachos had a definite spending problem.
- There are the three historians of the period, Psellus, Attaleiates, and Skylitzes, all of whom attested to his spending issues. Numerous times.
- There are the coinages from this period that show the devaluation of the currency starting in 1050, in the midst of Monomachos's reign. No country with a strong economy will devalue its currency.
- There is the fiscalization of the military duties of the thematic troops, meaning that the men who had previously been obligated to give military service were no longer required to do so, but instead had to pay a tax to support the Imperial taghmata troops. We can't be sure that Monomachos's government did not take the tax proceeds and spend it frivolously, but it would be a first in world history (apologies for my cynicism, but I've lived in Washington DC for too many years not to believe that).
- The author gives credit to Monomachos for repelling two rebellions (Maniakes and Tornikios) and one invasion (Rus). True, but these were fights that arrived at the city walls. He could not pretend that they weren't a problem. My sense is that he was less attentive to the incursions far into eastern Anatolia and in southern Italy - out of sight, out of mind.

I will agree with the author that we can't know 100% for sure about Monomachos, but I believe that there are strong indications that he was truly the one who started the Byzantine Empire on its road to decline and eventual ending in 1453. There may be evidence to support his conclusions, but I did not see it.

I did enjoy the discussion of Romanos IV Diogenes and his efforts in Anatolia to push back the Turks even before Mantzikert.

Overall, the author put in some impressive work, but I have to disagree with some of his conclusions.

[Gabriel Stein · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent

An excellent book which challenges - and in my view demolishes - a number of commonly held (mis)apprehensions about the Byzantine Empire. Notably, Kaldellis shows that the frequently repeated tale of powerful families challenging the state and eventually seizing it after the end of the Macedonian Dynasty, simply is not true. The Emperors never had to fear the so-called dynatoi. The challenges came from generals in command of armies, coupled with the fact that the Imperial throne in theory was open to anyone who could seize it. Strongly recommended.

[Mictter · Rating 4 out of 5]

Historia del Imperio Bizantino entre 950 y 1080: auge y expansión en tiempos de Nicéforo Focas y Basilio II, para terminar con el desastre a manos de los turcos selyúcidas.
Muy entretenido, aunque se centra exclusivamente en gobernantes, rebeliones y batallitas: me quedo sin saber cómo era la vida en Constantinopla y sus dominios, las relaciones económicas y culturales.

[Belinda · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was thick going for me, even though I have a grad degree in medieval history (Western European). However.... it was intriguing to read about what was going on in the East, since I've only studied the Crusades from the Western point of view.

[Edoardo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some of the middle bits aren't as well written, but this book blew my mind

[Jess · Rating 3 out of 5]

I wasn’t going to write a review for this one at all until page 262 out of 301, when I was so annoyed that I retroactively decided to. So if this isn’t a chapter by chapter deep dive that’s my bad, I should have allowed the spirit of irritation to take me over like a sock puppet much earlier to be able to produce something more systematic.

Starting with the positives. Something this author does well is keep things moving. It’s a quite dry history that the author is at pains to insist he is presenting accurately and without ‘modern imagination’, so it could be easy to get bogged down. I think the author pretty successfully drives the sometimes sparse narrative that results from this approach forward. I do also appreciate that the author very often uses Arabic language sources and even gives them precedence in some instances over the Byzantine sources. That’s a real positive credit to the books and the claim to be presenting a more impartial, balanced view than is common in the field. It’s really nice to hear Arabic sources given voice, and it’s even in some ways quite refreshing to have an historian outright say ‘we really don’t have a source on this and it seems to stem from later writers/modern writers assuming or outright making of things what they wish’ when that appears to be the case.

Unfortunately, that’s only one half of source work. Identifying when sources are sparse or bad and therefore which things we can only infer - campaigns, laws, army movement, whatever it may be - is good work and provides a good point for other scholars to jump off of. Some people spend years publishing incremental accounts clarifying the movement of XYZ force during the blah de blah war against whoever, you know. But the other half of source work - what sources are good or bad and WHY and what that tells us - is mostly absent in this book. Even bad sources are normally just declared so with a ‘this guy is mostly unreliable’. Okay! Why? Aren’t they all, to some extent? Isn’t it valuable to explore what they said after acknowledging salt pinching?

There’s a lot of examples of this but working backwards for this review makes it tricky to categorise them well - I think the worst off the top of my head is when Skylitzes’ account of the Bulgarian war(s) ‘is not viable’ because it is too fragmented (eg isn’t organised how the author wants, which intrigues me as he complains Skylitzes organises things by theme rather than chronologically… meanwhile that is essentially how this book is organised, as chronological reigns broken up into themes and geographical zone. So okay go off), then later Skylitzes is the main account for many happenings in the east and this is never brought up again, leaving the reader to ponder if the source was just as fragmentary but the best of a bad bunch, much better writing than the last account, or for some other reason has wormed it’s way back in. Meanwhile this is someone for whom there is a ‘Psuedo-Skylitzes’ set of accounts that people argue back and forth if they come from him or someone else, who delivered his great account during suddenly stable period after progressively shorter and more catastrophic reigns, and who possibly returned to change/expand his history after finishing it the first time…

Not once is Skylitzes interrogated as a person in order to take account of reliability or intention. He is only ever taken as a body of work. There are positives to such an approach, sure. It can allow an author to compare sources with relatively similar information much more easily, without becoming attached to the personality of the author and therefore following their interpretation when a fair review would do otherwise. But there are limits to this! We aren’t even given a first name and Fl. date range for Skylitzes in the text. How can a reader make their own balanced opinion without such important contextual information? There’s a very short biography of the ‘10 main sources’ right at the back of the book, outside the main text, and it really isn’t enough - the identity of a writer and their approach to a historical event isn’t extra optional info, it’s a fundamental part of doing and understanding history!

So it’s a serious, serious flaw with this book that there’s no continuous or even partial literature review to establish the POV and motivations of sources. Sources, to this author, aren’t opinions coming from characters within the world he is investigating. They are like facts and figures that he thinks he can review and discard, and which operate independently of where they come from. What eventually annoyed me enough to put him on blast, though, is there is also no names nor books referenced - except in notes and ‘further reading’ at the back - for contemporary views. Yet they come up so, so often, as a foil to the author’s claims but are not actually - explored? So many times throughout the book the author will take aim at other historians supposedly seeing the development of the empire as moving towards feudalism, and the theme of ‘people say the things that happened were because of class war but they’re wrong’ comes up CONSTANTLY but like. Who said that. Shall we talk about why they say that maybe? Every now and again you get a ‘some historians have tried to argue’ (page 272 just a single example of many), which is obnoxiously vague and only ever a spring board to present his approach as preferable.

Why won’t you tell us any context for your ancient sources, nor sources for your modern gripes? Where can I, a reader, get stuck into ‘either side’ of a question you claim divides the field - but that you, of course, have a wonderful third option to - when you don’t tell me who has these ideas and only bring them up to bookend your, superior, conclusion? On page 251 he introduces two views as ‘traditional’ and ‘new traditional’. The two opposing ideas are that the battle of Mantizert was the death-knell for Roman Asia Minor vs a battle with few casualties and too much importance placed on it retroactively. These views are mentioned in the last paragraph of the chapter only. No footnotes. Just claims. On page 274 he makes a typical strong, directionless, pointed claim: ‘the field has to come clean about the moralising and politicised way in which it has discussed thematic armies’. Who in the field, babes! I believe you, it sounds much like any field of history, but you have not given me anywhere to look for these moralising and politicising arguments I should be wary of. Why bother mentioning fellow experts in the field if you only have them as straw men for your arguments? It does everyone a disservice.

The final straw for my patience came from this tendency to uncited claims. There I was coming into page 262 thinking ugh yeah this hasn’t been great but I’m learning, I’m vibing. Only to see the words ‘Interestingly, the Norman conquest of England also produced a flood of Anglo-Saxon refugees who were dislocated by the racist regime of William the Conqueror’. HUH. HUH????? What a dramatically bold claim, and what a stupid claim first of all but moreover what an absolutely jaw-dropping claim to put in without a citation nor a note pointing to further discussion!!! In the very next sentence he says these refugees would get to fight the Normans again as mercenaries, and THERE he gives a source - but not to this audacious claim to a ‘racist’ Norman regime in England… girlies my blood is boiling typing this out.

It’s so, so stupid. It’s stupid because it’s wrong, by pretty much estimation, to claim that there was a social paradigm of racism between the newly ruling Scandi-French lords against the old Scandi-Germanic-English. Mostly because all of those words would be borderline gibberish to the people of the time given nationalism was nascent in a couple of places but absolutely not any Norman holding, and race was not a viable socio-political project anywhere in Eurasia at the time.

Most importantly, this claim is also very stupid by the author’s own self-imposed aversion to ‘modern imagination’ being applied to events at the time AS WELL AS the author’s consideration of parallel events committed by the Byzantines. Multiple times he covered Byzantine conquests in the East and West, complete with massacres, state ordered expulsion of all Muslim citizens in places like Antioch and the rest of Asia Minor, not to mention the regular kidnappings of Armenian and Jacobite Patriarchs.

It’s astonishing that the same author who mentions how ‘Roman-ness’ was a political project, and only citizens who practised the right religion and spoke the right language could assimilate, could look at the Norman conquest of England - where local populations were displaced, where local leaders were replaced, where a conquering regime created a linguistic and class space between themselves and their subjects exercised with extreme prejudice including kidnapping, brutal punishments etc, and thought… oh yeah well it’s racist when THEY did it. If Big Will’s reign was racist, the Byzantine emperors were capital R racist and spread that racism through far, far more lands and for a much longer time period. There’s only one instance of the word racist in this whole book, and it’s this? Stupid in multiple ways and hypocritical to boot.

Read my full review here: https://open.substack.com/pub/jesswal...

[Joe Kraus · Rating 3 out of 5]

On the strength of this book, Anthony Kaldellis can make a pretty good historical argument. He’s not a great storyteller, though.

I’m working my way through a series of medieval European histories, and I’m enjoying the way my reading about the Normans is intersecting with my reading about the Carolingians, Burgundians, the early Byzantines and, now, the late Byzantines. It’s a vastly tangled story, and I am growing to qpreciate it all the more as I spend time on one or another strand of it.

Kaldellis opens this with an impressive introduction. He argues there that “we” – generally Western historians but also non-Christian scholars from the East – don’t understand Byzantine history because we have cast it from the start as somehow foreign. It’s in the adjectival form. “Byzantine” is a by-word for so complicated that we can’t hope to make sense of it.

So, he commits in this impressive scholarship to g back to original sources and read them on their own terms. He makes the reasonable (but sometimes challenging to us readers) decision not to westernize names. So, instead of the various Johns I’ve gotten used to hearing referred to, we get Johannes. And then we also get a variety of Nicephorases that are hard to keep straight.

Still, it’s an interesting move – take the actions of the Byzantine emperors as examples of how they worked to forward their own interests and not merely for how they stood as contrast to the reasserted military and political power of Western Europe. As he often concludes, one or another emperor was not merely a dupe, but someone playing a geopolitical hand that got more and more compromised as the epicenter of Christianity swung back to France-Germany-Italy from its four or five century time in Byzantium.

As we get the blow-by-blow history, though, that larger picture often gets lost. I’m confident that everything he reports comes backed with his careful review of obscure sources – that comes through occasionally, and I suspect the print copy of the book has a lot of footnotes – but too often this descends into something like chronicle. We hear about a general who ventures with an army in one direction, has a three or four engagement campaign, and then retires from the field…usually to get blinded by one or another emperor.

In other words, the history itself is too particularized, too much about the trees rather than the forest.

As a rough stab at what this might have been, it turns out that this is really the history of the Macedonian dynasty of emperors. By duration and military influence, Basil II is the main character. We don’t get as much of that as I might expect, though. He’s predominant, but only because he’s the man in charge for many of the incidents we get.

I think Kaldellis is aware of that since he has occaqsional chapters where he pauses to reflect on the implications of the events he’s chronicled, but it seems clumsy – as a matter of storytelling – to separate those two elements. Might he not have made his argument central to the story he’s telling?

I get that he’s not setting out to entertain. He’s a scholar, and he’s making available findings that, without altering our fundamental sense of the empire as it reclaimed territory and power lost two centuries earlier and then lost it, recolors much of what we’ve long thought we knew. That’s important but subtle work.

Still, as a reader, I’d prefer a more blended narrative here.

And, what’s the deal with all the blinding? Basil supposedly had the eyes gouged out of 15,000 Bulgarians. And one after another claimant went through it, too. It’s horrifying, of course, but I’d have been grateful for a little social history to explain the implications…and to keep from thinking of these Byzantines as so exotic. Or, to use another word, from thinking of them as so Byzantine.

[Jack · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thoroughly enjoyed Streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood. The book strikes a near-perfect balance between being a specialized, scholarly work and a narrative history for laymen.

Kaldellis is very careful as to the sources he uses. As he himself is a prolific scholar in the field of Byzantine History, he is able to sift through what few sources we have and immediately point out the biases, fabrications and exaggerations that suited whatever ideological intent the original author had. Kaldellis also is able to reframe certain aspects of Eastern Roman society and politics as to steer clear of common Scholarly misconceptions such as the supposed conflict between the peasant-opressing "Anatolian magnates" and the liberating state (this view really being a product of scholars projecting West European federalism and even socialistic concepts onto Eastern Rome). All in all, the historical work here is top notch and well constructed.

Due to the in-depth nature of the book there are plenty of little tidbits of information. Some that I found fascinating are:
- The settlement of Armenians, encouraged by the State (as they were seen as a loyal Christian population, albeit monophysite on paper), into vast swathes of Anatolia, Syria and Upper Mesopotamia (particularly Melitene, Antioch and Edessa, while Armenian Nobels liked land in Cappadocia), and the tension between the Anatolian Greek-Speakers and the Armenian arrivals.
- The reliance on the 'tagmata' (standing armies) as the Roman armies went on the offensive outside of Anatolia, at the expense of the defensive 'themata' (tied to themes/provinces, part-farmers and part-soldiers). Although, Kaldellis says that the themata wouldn't have faired any better against the Seljuks than the tagmata.
- The cultural revival of the early 11th century (once the new conquests began producing sizeable amounts of wealth), lead by philosophers like Michael Psellos and resulting in a proper middle-class.

Kaldellis produces here the rich world of the Eastern Roman Empire during its Golden Age of the Macedonian Dynasty, and then its fall with the unbeatable three-front war against the Normans, Seljuks and Pechenegs. You do not need to be a scholar to read this book and understand what's going on, but at the same time it's a solid work of scholarship in itself. 5/5 from me.

[William · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very impressed with this book. It's a narrative history that goes through 955-1081 (and a new approach to the First Crusade from a Byzantine Lense) in vivid detail, questioning the source material, and long-standing narratives of this historical era/topic. For example he rejects the existence of the dynatoi, who apparently used feudalising personal estates/wealth instead of the old farmer-peasants soldiers and power players of earlier periods. He instead sees Byzantium as a non-feudal and clearer Imperial system in this period with a very particular system, in which all power stemmed from the Emperor, whose succession rules were always unclear (which changes following the Komnenian restoration). Again his fixation on using the source material allows for compelling argumentation, which seem clear in hindsight. It's also just awesome history, he gives adequate time to Basil II of course, and for gap areas of this history (parts of Basil II's reign and Constantine X Douka's reign) he does his best with the material provided. He's a good writer, and his occasionally polemical attacks on other viewpoints I find amusing too (Byzantium wasn't a liberal open borders fantasy for example, when explaining how just because they had vassal states didn't mean the empire didn't also have concrete borders, a customers system etc). New arguments on the First Crusade are icing on the cake, and help graphically illustrate the Byzantine Reconquista it initially was, which I always find obscured in other books. The rises and falls, and his explanation for the Apogee and the Decline I find compelling and interesting (a lack of sources pre-Manzikert is also a key component too, hard to know how strong the Seljuks were too). A 10/10 for me, a landmark piece on Byzantine history, and will be a great reference for my personal references (curious how it will compare to other, perhaps more modern, pieces too).

[Ibrahim · Rating 5 out of 5]

Its interesting that this book basically posits that the Byzantines served as this colossus anchoring the medieval world - after incorporating or neutering the various threats of the 7th and 8th century: slavs in greece, the arab advances, the magyars and the bulgars, the Empire expanded in the 10th century as a consequence of their external enemies faltering, only to have those expansions reversed and to lose Asia minor in response to newer, more mercenary threats of the Normans and the Turks. The author goes at pains to show that the crusaders fit into the last mold as well, even though they initially came as part of the military structure of the byzantines that was constructed to take back previous byzantine holdings conquered by muslims.

The books central refutation of older byzantinist ideas is that domestically the political system did not change structurally during this whole time: it remained a military-imperial structure where power was got from official appointments, the polity was made up of greek speaking romans mostly (and would absorb any orthodox newcomers into it), with power pluralistically shared between the eunuch led bureaucracy, prominent families, military establishment, and the general population of Constantinople. Only Basil the second broke this pluralistic power structure, and that was after destroying his military rivals, destroying external enemies and neutering the bureaucracy.

Its enjoyable, and very educational about the era of byzantine politics. However, I am skeptical that the wildly different outcomes in Byzantine imperialism were not influenced by changes in wider structural forces (outside of the palace coups and other regular court intrigues). There are many times where the author makes clear that the sources are not clear or do not exist for many of these structural investigations, but the spotty record of Byzantine does not mean that these structural changes did not happen.

[William Gill · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a rich and detailed examination of 10th and 11th century Byzantine history! Kaldellis presupposes a certain familiarity with the subject matter, so it is not for those naive to the setting, but what he offers is a disciplined level of depth for the interested reader iced with a constantly fresh analysis of the times and review of the contemporary sources.
This is a story full of triumph, expansion, and catastrophic collapse, softened in the end by the unexpected decisions and imperfect management of yet another (in a seemingly inexhaustible line of intriguing persons) heroic figure who sets in motion everything that will save the empire in the short run, yet destroy it in the end.
It's the stuff of myth, legend, and tragic fantasy. And it's all true.
This also dovetails nicely right into Peter Frankopan's The First Crusade: the call from the East and I would suggest reading them back to back.
Many thanks to Robin Pierson for recommending both books. His podcast, The History of Byzantium is superlative. Anyone interested in the history of the Romans beyond the founding of Constantinople should give him a listen.

[Matthew · Rating 5 out of 5]

A captivating narrative history exploring the mediaeval roman empire's golden age and its dramatic fall in the 1070s and 1080s.

My only complaint with the book is that it does not cover the first 15 years of the reign of Alexios Komnenos in detail, only in passing; however, the positioning of the romans in the story of the first crusade is fascinating and makes for excellent reading.

Kaldellis shows how the Roman bureaucracy, economy, and logistical system carried thousands of foreign crusaders through Romania and into Turkish controlled lands, and how Komnenos' use of soft power both created the crusader army and put it on the path to both Jerusalem and the resoration of Romania.

This was the highlight of the book for me, but with a jump of 15 years from the Komnenian coup d'etat to the crusade makes the epilogue feel detached. Romania suddenly goes from the brink of ruin to a country with a healthy economy that can support an army the size of Romanos Diogenes' Manzikert force but with less than half the economic base.

[Ryan Patrick · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've come to really enjoy Kaldellis's books--they're well-argued and provocative (see also his The Byzantine Republic: People and Power in New Rome ). He is particularly good at evaluating and following the primary sources where they lead. I learned a lot and had my point of view refreshed and reorientated. Besides putting the reign of Basil II into a better historical context and re-habilitating Emperor Constantine IX Monomachos, Kaldellis also re-imagines the opening stages of the First Crusade (in his Epilogue) in a refreshing counter to traditional western-centric accounts: the Crusaders were operating as a traditional Byzantine, imperially-led military force until Alexios was informed that the Crusaders had all died besieging Antioch...

[Spyros · Rating 5 out of 5]

A book written by one of the best in their field. This is reflected by his writing and historical analysis on a Byzantine age of splendor and glory.

Many such books have been published, but however much such an effort may seem easy, the result needs to be both satisfactory for people who are more knowledgeable on the Byzantine history and those who don’t know much but would like to learn more without being overwhelmed by the quantity of information.

In my opinion this book has achieved to maintain this balance as it provides a new perspective on historical events which make someone who is already familiar with the topic to continue reading without getting bored. At the same time, the writing style and the way history is narrated can uniquely immerse even the most ignorant person regarding the Byzantine era.

[Raymond Bucko · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a great book if you are interested in the military history or the history of leadership of the Byzantine Empire. The author makes good use of his sources and he uses his sources critically. This is a great example of good scholarship. If you are interested in Byzantine culture or religion or the common people you will be sorely disappointed by this book which has a definite focus on the military. The author's style is very easy to read or listen to in my case. I recommend this book if you are advanced student of Byzantine history. If you are interested in ordinary people you must look elsewhere as I have mentioned. This book traces the rise and fall of the Byzantine Empire from a definite perspective. The author lay out what he will do and he definitely accomplishes this.

[Jerome Otte · Rating 4 out of 5]

An intelligent, well-written and witty history of the empire up to the First Crusade.

The book is short and not as comprehensive as some may wish. Still, the narrative is clear, informative and very readable, and Kaldellis shows how quickly the empire expanded and how it eventually declined. He describes the politics, economics, and wars of the Byzantines in a way that brings everything to life. The analysis is thorough.

The occasional use of first person is a little annoying, though, and the coverage of Alexios I and the First Crusade seems a little rushed. Still, an eloquent, well-researched and engaging work.