The Emperors of Byzantium

by Kevin Lygo, Bettany Hughes (Introduction), Robert Peston (Foreword)

A vivid narrative history of one of the founding civilizations of the modern world, the Byzantine empire, evocatively told through the lives of its ninety-two emperors. The Byzantine empire was one of the most successful states of the Middle Ages, ruling over a huge terrain straddling Europe and western Asia for eleven hundred years from the fourth to fifteenth centuries. This chronicle by Byzantine expert Kevin Lygo brings this majestic yet turbulent period to life through the lives of its the supreme military commander, the head of state, and God’s representative on Earth, no less. These rulers, who included famous figures such as Constantine the Great and Justinian I, a scattering of women, as well as ruthless usurpers, left their mark upon the modern world with the establishment of the Eastern Orthodox Christian faith, the creation of a visual template for Christian art, and the magnificent artistic achievements of Hagia Sophia and Mount Athos. Each illustrated biographical entry contributes to the story of how Byzantium shaped art, culture, religious beliefs, and justice systems, as well as the role this extraordinary empire played in halting repeated invasions, allowing the idea of “Europe” to flourish. Through this compelling history, Lygo paints vivid portraits of the entire Byzantine cast, with tales of petty revenge, religious devotion, sexual intrigue, and artistic brilliance. From soaring intellectuals to illiterate peasants, eunuchs, and despots, this is a humanizing portrayal of the individuals whose rule profoundly impacted the lives of millions. 180 color illustrations

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

336 pages, Hardcover

Published June 7, 2022

Reviews

[Ray · Rating 3 out of 5]

A gallop through the 92 Emperors and Empresses of Byzantium. Some are better served than others, and there was a bit of a feel of haste about it. To be fair to do all this in 300 pages is an ask.

What saved the book for me was the photos and maps which were glorious, and the cover is not bad either.

[Marcussharcus · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overall it’s an accomplishment just to get from beginning to end of over a millennium of history, but man was this uneven. Some figures got the focus they deserved, some were absolutely skimmed over (especially in the second half). This book was rife with typos too, which I thought was odd. In parts this was excellent and well researched and in others I literally had to go to Wikipedia for clarification, which is damning even for pop history.

[O. U. · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Byzantine Empire, or the Eastern Roman Empire for all the White Collar folks, feels like a historical vacuum. Growing up in the American school system, I don't think the Byzantines were mentioned once in any of my historical classes, even in the ones that took a focus on European history. Classes I took on the medieval era in college focused more on the Fall of Rome and the emergence of Charlemagne, Vikings, and the Holy Roman Empire.

What of the continuation of the Romans in what was Constantinople, alive and well in the Eastern Mediterranean? Maybe a singular page on Justinian. Hailing from the Balkans myself, you'd think I'd be used to that part of the world being condensed to a line, or a page in history books. The Byzantines went on for another 1000+ years in various states through the Fall of Rome to the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, though to call them an "Empire" for the last few hundred years would be an insult to their various peaks under Emperors such as Justinian I, Basil II, Alexios I Komnenos, Heraklios, etc.

The Empire, in and after its' time, would leave its' mark on history through mosaics, Eastern Orthodoxy, rights for women, the emergence of the Renaissance, and even popularized the use of the fork amongst many other things.

That whole intro spiel is there to pique your interest in the topic, and this book is a pretty good place to start if you want to read into it more. If you like losing yourself in the depths of Wikipedia like I do, you'll find the format and content of this book to be generally favorable.

In essence, it's a run through of every single Byzantine Emperor from beginning to end in a quick, almost "Pop History" sort of fashion. It'll give you the run down of each one, some of their major accomplishments or failures, their ambitions or lack thereof. To be honest, I'd rather this book was maybe split into two thicker volumes and took a more in-depth look at each one, but hey, it's a good intro, and if you want to expand your knowledge on it, the opportunities are out there.

One final thing to praise is the production aspect. The hardcover has some heft to it, the art/lettering within and on the covers/spine are excellent. You can tell that the book was well produced for sure.

4/5. Get your eyes on this book before Basil II comes to town.

LAST THREE REVIEWS:
The Way of Kings - Brandon Sanderson (4.5/5)
Part 2 Battle Tendency - Hirohiko Araki (3/5)
The Warden - Daniel M. Ford (2/5)

[ik.ben.henri · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wie heeft Fire and Blood nodig als dit even goed is en de echte geschiedenis bevat van het Byzantijnse Rijk.

Vertaling bevat soms wel rare fouten. Zinnen die niet kloppen en titels van hoofdstukken, meestal de naam van de keizer die aan de beurt is, zijn soms ook fout. BV keizer justinus 1 werd opgevolgd door justinianus 1. Hij is genoemd naar justinus 1. Erg verwarrende namen. Beide hoofdstukken de naam justinianus 1. Zo zijn er nog momenten dat er iemand zich gemist heeft. De schrijver zelf lijkt me sterk. De vertaler? Opmaak?

De uitgave is erg goed met goede papierkeuze, typografie en mooie kleurfotos.

[Harm · Rating 5 out of 5]

Keizers van Constantinopel is een bom van licht en wetenschap die het duistere en onbekende Byzantijnse Rijk verheldert aan onze gebrekkige kennis in West-Europa over het middeleeuwse Oosten. Het geeft een compleet overzicht van keizerlijke dynastieën en keizers en beschrijft de ontwikkeling van het Oost-Romeinse Rijk / Byzantijnse Rijk op alle belangrijke terreinen. Zo bleken capabele keizers en legeraanvoerders uiteraard van groot belang te zijn, maar was het orthodoxe christendom ook een grote speler. Niet onbelangrijk: het boek staat vol met geweldige illustraties die helpen het beeld over het Byzantijnse Rijk nog duidelijker te maken. Onder andere topografische kaarten zijn zeer handig en keizerlijke en orthodox-christelijke afbeeldingen voegen extra gevoel en inzicht toe aan de tekst.

[Nic Cokis · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book had so much potential but really let itself down. Historical style was like a 12 year old boy would write history. Way too much "oh this emperor was the greatest". That's not very interesting. Don't get an art historian to write a history book I guess.

[Josh Swinscoe · Rating 5 out of 5]

An interesting read on a period of history I'm not as well versed in. It covers the entire history of Byzantium, from Constantine I to Constantine XI. Giving descriptions of all 92 emperors that ruled during this time. To do this in just under 300 pages is a feat in itself. Some figures get more and some get less, but it's expected in something like this.

It's structured very well, and is easy to read, and you won't want to put it down at all. Though you will need to keep doubling back so you truly do understand who's who. As the review saying it makes game of thrones look like a scrap in the playground is a hundred percent correct. You will get lost on who's being spoken about, their reigns, their families, servants, rivals. Plenty of names and it does overwhelm, but that's the fault of the history not the book.

Overall, this is a brilliant read, and you won't want to put it down. I 100% recommend this as an introductory or just overview read of the byzantine empire.

[Ricco · Rating 3 out of 5]

Voordat ik overga op de review van dit boek, wil ik eerst zeggen dat er in de Nederlandse vertaling erg veel taalfouten zaten, familliebanden staan er soms verkeerd in (in het ene hoofdstuk is iemand de broer van de keizer, het andere hoofdstuk is die de neef), woorden worden soms gewoon niet vertaald (zo staat in het boek 'omens' ipv voortekenen) en zo kan ik nog even doorgaan.

De inhoud van het boek is erg goed, van elke Byzantijnse keizer word verteld wat die heeft gedaan voor het keizerrijk, en deze keizers worden met meerdere prachtige illustraties kracht bij gezet. Het leest vlot weg, en Kevin Lygo heeft verstand van zaken. Het enige minpuntje is dat hij soms vaag blijft over bepaalde data, zo worden niet altijd jaartallen gegeven bij veldslagen.

Kortom, een erg mooie introductie in de wereld van het Byzantijnse keizerrijk, maar de Nederlandse editie had even nog een keer nagelezen mogen worden.

[Rares Antonio · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good introduction to Byzantine history and the history of its many monarchs, gives key dates, some maps and others.

However, it is very limited in scope, has been simplified a lot and much is left out and is definitely felt, as it creates the atmosphere of a hastily put-together book report and extremely extremely confusing at parts, I’m sure I didn’t understand 40% of what was going on as everyone has the same name as their parents, grandparents, sons and brothers and then every mother and grandmother is also involved with everything, culminating with most of them just going to live in a monastery.

Yh, so ok book, nice paper quality and pictures as well, just very hasty, spelling mistakes are present, and confusing.

[Koeneman · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book gives you a small biography about every Byzantine (Eastern Roman) emperor from Constantine to Constantine XI 1100 years later. A lot would, in the end, die by their own family.

You get broad information and a lot of times just too little. Some emperors deserve so much more interesting and detailed information. But in the end it was the choose of the writer to do it this way.

[Jess · Rating 1 out of 5]

The overall structural choices are smart. It reminded me of Michael Grant’s excellent The Roman Emperors, and it has similar benefits. Organising history into mini biographies allows the reader to follow long-term trends – economic, religious, political – much more easily. You can also see recurring themes, such as the qualities of a reign that would likely lead to military rebellion and a new dynasty, emerge.

Lygo also prefaces a number of his biographical snippets with a contemporary or adjacent description. These are fun! They are not useful, given that they are completely out of context (across the book I believe the only two characters whose quotes were given and were actually discussed in the text were Michael Psellos and Anna Komnene), and they are not cited nor given in the original so I felt violent. But they were fun!

The biggest positive of this book is tied up with one of my greatest frustrations with it, however – Byzantium is a neglected empire. Accessible works in the field, especially works in English, are relatively uncommon. It’s a good thing to try and draw interest in such an unfairly ignored and historically maligned period.

In many ways, I felt the same way about this book as I do about Nolan’s Odyssey. It is good that these popular versions are drawing mainstream attention to a cool thing! It is also deeply frustrating that the popular versions are shit and would empower the worst person you know to think that they can speak authoritatively on it.

Where this book and Nolan’s Odyssey differ, however, and what increases my frustration exponentially, is that this problem was deeply avoidable.

Emily Wilson can do Ὀδύσσειia, but not The Odyssey (2026).

No matter how great a historian, that doesn’t make them a good storyteller, nor gives them skills that are particularly useful when producing a movie.

But you know what Emily Wilson can do? She CAN WRITE A FUCKING BOOK.

There are dozens and dozens of Byzantists who could have written this book and done it well. There are Byzantists who are experienced and published in the genre of popular history, too. Herrin, Kaldellis, Frankopan, Brownworth.

Why the fuck is a non-Byzantist writing this book? Badly? From what I can tell, he’s a sometime art historian, sometime TV exec.

So it’s… it’s bad.

Lygo is certainly no historian. Each biography follows a similar structure. A few key moments or ideas are explained. How the emperor in question died is always important – the gorier the details, the better. As a cherry on top, many of the biographies will end with a moralistic stance on whether they were ‘good’ or not:

‘[Of John II Komnenos] Tolerant, just, pious, faithful to his wife and to his empire, John was one of the best emperors that Byzantium was to have…’

It becomes clear very quickly that in order to distill hundreds of years into such a slim book, Lygo has presumably made some strict editorial decisions:

No explaining sources; never waste time exploring different ways of explaining a situation or character.

Keep it gory, highlight the schlock wherever you can. How else would you get two references to Game of Thrones into the first couple of pages, including the front cover?

Make a moral decision. A person is good or bad. Pick one. When in doubt, pick a characterisation made by older, classic historians. They could never be wrong, right?

The poor quality of the writing and history can best be seen through the many, many mistakes.

I’m not even going to give examples of the simplifications which are so reductive as to be arguably wrong – just one place Lygo is straight up wrong with no defence.

‘In 511 the oft-cited words ‘Holy God, Holy and Mighty, Holy and Immortal’ were read out in the cathedral, followed by the phrase ‘who was crucified for us’. This was too much for strict followers of the Chalcedonian doctrine, according to which it was not the man Jesus who was crucified but God himself.’

Hi, person who’s psychotic about early Christian heresies here. What the fuck are you talking about? The Chalcedonian doctrine never said anything even close to ‘not the man Jesus who was crucified by God himself’.

What was wrong with adding ‘who was crucified for us’ was that the initial formulation – known as the Trisagion – was a prayer to God, and the addition implied that the divine Godhead has been crucified. Divine nature could not be said to suffer or die – that’s a heresy, hun.

This is one of those Christological arguments that gets complicated quickly, but Lygo has somehow managed to make it both complicated and wrong. Chalcedonian Christianity insisted that Jesus was crucified, and would not accept a separation between a human Jesus and a divine Christ. It insisted that Christ was one person with both a human and a divine nature.

Do you know what happens when a non-historian writes a history book by relying on other established historians’ work?

They often parrot/replicate claims and ideas.

That’s good though, right? Isn’t the problem with a non-historian trying to write something like this the fact that they don’t know what they’re talking about? Falling back on the work of real historians who do know what they’re saying is a good thing. Right? Right!??!??

Not this way girl.

There’s not a huge amount of English-language history written about the Byzantines. Much of what does exist is old. Written by old, overwhelmingly male figures.

Every historian leaves a smear of themselves through all of their work. Those who come later have to be smart and try to find where the line is, where that bias has changed things, and try to assess the material again just in case something dangerous has squeaked through.

It actually doesn’t matter much if something wrong slips through, btw. First of all, subsequent careful historians will usually find a mistake and correct it. Secondly, a lot of things are wrong.

I’ll just give two examples because I am tired of this book and want to be done with and never think of this man again except to spit.

Lygo claims that it was Basil I’s ‘magical ability to tame horses’ which brought him to the attention of Michael III. He repeats a story which he calls plausible:

‘…Michael III was given a magnificent white Stallion that was wild and seemingly unmanageable. When somebody suggested that they let their talented groom, Basil, attempt to tame it, Michael witnessed his powers at first hand. Basil took the horse’s bridle in one hand and stroked its ear with the other, whispering all the while. The horse was instantly tamed, and Michael hired Basil on the spot as his chief groom.’

All of this is a perfect demonstration of the fact that Lygo is not a medievalist, nor a Byzantinist, and that he is leaning on a certain kind of source to do all of his critical analysis for him.

Horses and horse taming are a common refrain and story frame in medieval chronicles. These kinds of stories – invariably written later during the reigns of such people (or their children) – are hagiography. They generally have little to no basis in reality. The chroniclers are making a point, not recording fact.

Decent historians know this. The best historians consider why horses and horse symbology was important. In this case, the story resembles ones told about Alexander the Great and his horse, Bucephalus. In addition, Basil represented the trope of the commoner-to-emperor pipeline. What was compelling and exciting about this to people was the concept of having an emperor with real, not arcane, skills. In this particular example, Basil was a young and healthy man, able to handle horses – like the warrior elite – to stand in contrast to a man known as ‘Michael the Drunkard’.

That Lygo cannot do this analysis himself and is relying on existing, older material is clear by how forcefully and quickly he dismisses Michael and Basil’s sexual relationship.

‘There is a later inference, again unfounded, that they were homosexual lovers…’

Actual historians can tell you that the contemporary literature implies that there was a sexual relationship between the two men. A fair and balanced assessment would be that this is the ‘plausible’ option. There is no basis for confidently declaring the possibility ‘unfounded’.

My second example concerns Lygo’s treatment of the Empress Eudoxia.

‘Eudoxia, the new empress of the East, and the eunuch Eutropius now dominated the life of the court. Corruption became commonplace, with Eutropius openly selling off high positions in government to the highest bidders. Eudoxia was at the centre of court life and interfered in matters of state whenever she pleased. Her lewd behaviour, extravagant clothes and propensity to throw lavish parties were criticised by the patriarch of Constantinople… his clashes with Eudoxia resulted in his being banished from the capital for a short period…’

Wow! The empress had a row with the Patriarch and her mates were selling off roles in government! Wow! Sounds… very standard, normal, and a good reason to imply the empress was uniquely bad. Let’s take the criticisms completely seriously. I bet her enemy she banished was right about everything.

The problem is that Lygo doesn’t seem interested in the historical question of why these accusations existed, who was making them, what political interests they served, or how reliable they are.

To finish this point I’m going to go back to the Odyssey again and I’m sorry again.

What if Achilles and Patroclus really were boyfriends? Let’s say there’s a ‘right’ version of history, that some guy (guys) called Homer wrote (sang) down, and recorded correctly that they were shagging.

Then Troy (2004) makes them cousins. Is that bad? Meh. Is it bad because it is wrong? Not really! A lot of history is wrong and will always be wrong because it’s impossible to reconstruct perfectly. We’re all interpreting and re-telling a story.

Wrong history is only really bad when it’s dangerous. When someone says Achilles and Patroclus were cousins, like – okay? When someone says Achilles and Patroclus were cousins because they are heroes and being gay is evil and heroes of the Western canon must be pure and righteous… THAT’S bad. A dangerous thing has gotten through the net of history.

Lygo couldn’t tell his iambic dodecasyllables from his arse. So dangerous things are falling through his net uncritically, because he is just replicating the thoughts of other people without the expertise to know when it’s something right vs acceptably wrong vs dangerous. You can almost have a conversation with Gibbon in the background at times.

What this boils down to is every single woman in the narrative is a ‘scheming’, ‘ambitious’, power-hungry bitch. Every gay relationship is a lie made up later by people trying to gay-ify the past. The court was ‘effete’ and the empire weak and once Islam began to spread it began an inevitable, long drawn out rot into death.

It’s dangerous rubbish mixed in with mindless genuine mistakes, which makes the whole thing so suspect as to render it useless. Useless for the uninitiated, who will find their newfound ‘understanding’ is blurred by complete shite. Useless for the experienced, who will find themselves confused and doubting their own sanity. Useless for the expert, who will be unfathomably pissed off with every page.

Byzantium deserves the attention, and there is real value in having a readable, popular history that might send people towards the much richer scholarship that already exists.

But accessibility isn’t an excuse for flattening historical questions into good emperors and bad emperors while treating any source – hostile or hagiographic – as transparent fact. There are excellent Byzantinists writing for general audiences; this could have been an opportunity to introduce readers to their work and to a fascinating empire. Instead, it repeatedly gives readers the confidence of knowledge without the substance, like old-fashioned hand-reared AI slop.

I don’t mind history being entertaining, reductive, or even occasionally wrong; history is interpretation, and nobody gets everything right. What I mind is a book that strips away the uncertainty and argument that make history interesting, then fills the resulting gaps with moral judgements, gore, sexual intrigue, and centuries-old assumptions that women be scheming. If this book gets someone interested in Byzantium, excellent. I just hope to the Trisagion that they read something of substance next.

Read my full review here: https://jesswalsh23.substack.com/p/bo...

[Karina Samyn · Rating 3 out of 5]

3,5
Een wat saaie opsomming van alle Byzantijnse keizers. Daardoor is het allemaal wat oppervlakkig. Toch een mooi overzicht en er dieper op in gaan door andere boeken te lezen, kan altijd. De mooie illustraties maken veel goed. En hoewel kunstzinnig, waren de Byzantijnen ook bijzonder wreed. Tegenstanders, ook naaste familieleden werden bij de vleet blind gemaakt. Toch een hele prestatie want dit rijk was werkelijk het duizendjarig rijk!

[Jef Verstraete · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really good book. It is very brief for the time it it covering, but as a first introduction or if you want to know something abou lesser known emperors it is great !

[Peter Fox · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was a Christmas present that I was really looking forward to. However, it is pretty disappointing.


On the plus side, the production values are splendid. It's a handsome book with great quality paper. It's also written in an engaging way and rattles along at a pace.


On the negative side, it is very lightweight in content. Owing to a fair sized font and generous spacing, plus plenty of art, each entry is very slight and you only learn the basics of each reign. You'd probably learn more from wikipedia in many cases. A lot better use could have been made of the amount of space in this book with a smaller font and closer spacing. With more flesh on the bones, this could have been a great book.


For anyone who knows anything about the history of Byzantium, you will be unlikely to learn something that you don't already know.

[Rain · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an odd book. Despite being written by what I'm assuming is the head of ITV, it is reasonably well written and goes into a respectable amount of depth into each emperor of the eastern roman empire and helps explain *some* of the politics of their respective periods. But it could be at least double the length, some entries feel brief and don't go into enough detail (Justinian I and Basil II the bulgar slayer, Constantine IX [the east-west schism of catholicism is skimmed over almost entirely] especially). I also noticed Andronikos Komnenos is called 16 despite being 61. whoops.

I think overall its a good entry point into the history of the later roman empire, which is a sorely overlooked period of history despite being of immense importance and legacy.

[Luke · Rating 2 out of 5]

As soon as I saw Constantine Monomachos gazing at me coyly I knew I needed to get the book. I expected more from it.

The Forward starts by having a quick whinge about “culture wars” and I'm already rolling my eyes, but I move on.

The Book loses a of credibility almost immediately by confusing Constantine’s half uncles for his sons which left me confused for a few mins until I went to wikipedia to have a look at the family tree to try and make sense of what I was reading. I knew something was off because the book correctly mentons Constantine's step mother but forgets about her in the next few sentences.
So I was on high alert for the rest of the book.

There's a bunch of random spelling and spacing errors laced throughout as well as random naming errors, like the book calls Irene Laskarina “Irene Laskaris” multiple times which isn't that incorrect but again it's something that should have been picked up on.

Book also propagates incorrect statements which have long since proven incorrect, eg: Heraklius changed the language of the empire to Greek, no he didn't. Which is disappointing considering this came out in 2022.

There are a lot of statements which state this emperor was the first person to do this thing, when it's already told me someone else has done that exact same thing, there was something about Justinian II being the first to reign twice, even though we covered Zeno like 60 pages ago. There were also a few random other claims which either worded really strangely or obviously wrong which just left me very confused.

Also included are a few plain bizarre decisions, the book calls the “dynasty” of justin- justianian - justin ii the “Justinian Dynasty” not Justinianic or Justinian’s which was quite strange. Book also says Pulchera was the first empress to rule in her own right, cool ok tell me more but then it doesn't elaborate at all spending a combined two pages on her and Marcian as shared reign.

Book glosses over a lot leaving a basic outline of the story telling it a each individual emperor until you get to the Frankokratia which it then gives a very non specific overview of the latin empire, trebizond and epirus and then reverts to its format with the nicene emperors. It glosses over a lot but it gets the basic outline across.

It comes down to how the chapters are structured but the book ends up repeating itself way too much, which just adds unnecessary fluff to a book which already is often lacking in details, not a good combination.

The book is enjoyable but that's more because Byzantine history is so engaging than the talent of the author, however there's nothing much here for anyone who is already familiar with the subject.

It really could have used another look over, it just feels unfinished and unpolished, like I paid 30 bucks for this and you're mixing up your characters and having obvious spelling issues in the first 20 pages.

On the plus side the cover is really nice which is a shame because the content doesn't match shout out to “Steve O Connell” which i think is the cover artist.

Tldr: don't bother.

For some reason the edition of this book I actually read is not included as this same book but separated as a different book I have copied my review over to warn people away.

[Ef · Rating 2 out of 5]

Positives - It is a beautiful object; lovely paper, great illiustrations, easy-to-read font and so on. The foreword to this book by Peston is hugely entertaining; it reads like a defence of Byzantium from a Europa Universalis player. I was (I must admit) expecting left-wing, economics-and-social-politics-obsessed revisionism from a bunch of British TV types, however that isn't the case at all. It's a handy 'gazeteer' type book for names / reign-dates / basic information (caveat being the below).

Negatives - the author takes historical sources completely at their word, and doesn't offer much-to-any critical response; for anyone familiar with Procopius, Theophanes, or Anna Komnena, you're going to get quotes from the Secret History and the Alexiad basically verbatim. This is especially noticeable in the passgages about Nikephoros I having 'all of the children crushed under millstones', or of Theodora being a sort of succubus prostitute-witch that cast a spell on Justinian.

There are a lot of basic errors of history and geography in the book, and again these jump out at anyone with a passing interest in the topic. The review @ https://thecritic.co.uk/pardonable-se... sums up these issues nicely.

[Harry · Rating 2 out of 5]

This text is a moderately competent survey of the Eastern Roman Empire and contains plenty of pretty illustrations but plenty of flaws as well: a critical attitude to the sources is almost completely absent (and is credulous even by the standards of 'popular' histories), the summaries of the emperors towards the end feel rushed and artificially contracted while the entertaining quotes at the beginning of each at times inexplicably disappear and there are some frustrating repetitions in side-by-side sections of the book; in a reference work this would be reasonable enough, but here it just comes across as jarring.

This is not to mention several fallacies (such as the description of the Huns as "Germanic), ostensible contradictions (for instance regarding whether Christianity was made the state religion under Constantine or Theodosius) and the general presentation of plausible but contestable historical evaluations as neutral fact. It's not dull, but a more scrupulous attitude to the source material and historiography would make this a more enriching work for both casual and more knowledgeable readers.

[NielsG · Rating 3 out of 5]

Comprehensive survey of the Byzantine emperors. The accounts of some emperors were way too brief, others were the right length. However, in a work of this scope I guess it is impossible to go into too much detail on every front.
What I really did not like was the huge amount of typing and spelling errors and wrong titles (Justinian II instead of Justin II etc.), at least in the Dutch version. Either they did not use a proofreader at all or the person lied about doing his job.
My last disappointment may be minor, because it is the text that really matters, but the cover photo of the Dutch version is a really unsharp picture of a mosaic, while there are many beautiful and sharp pictures inside. It just comes off as unprofessional to choose such a bad photograph as the book's cover.

[✎ madalaine · Rating 4 out of 5]

Beautiful book with wonderful pictures of art and architecture! I think that perhaps a little more description of the world around these emperors would have been good, touching on the architecture a little more—and for this reason I’m doing 4/5 as it was a little tricky to envision the world these people were living in, nance making them feel a little like a character not a person. But the writing was sublime. I really enjoyed this book.

[David Cole · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a great reference tool for the non-academic with an interest in Byzantium. It is not an in depth work of scholarship and makes no pretensions at being so. It is rather a very entertaining, well illustrated high level survey of the procession of East Roman Emperors. There is enough fascinating detail included to provide much food for thought while still providing a very useful thumbnail survey covering the great sweep of Byzantine history and art.

[Luis Cardenas · Rating 5 out of 5]

The idea that we have about the Byzantine empire, is always a slow decline until the final defeat and conquered by the Ottomans.

But this remarkable book is a journey through its entire history, through the eyes of its rulers, the good and the bad, the betrayal and the defense against Islam.

Since as the author puts it, Rome did not fall, it only moved to the East.

[Dylan · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book itself is excellent (binding, paper, illustrations). This was not the Byzantine history I was looking for. Many other reviewers pointed this out, but the book moves too quickly between emperors to really get a sense of how their lives are intertwined with the empire's.

[William Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

An enjoyable, if not comprehensive, journey through the reigns of the emperors of Eastern Rome or Byzantium from Constantine I to Constantine XI.

This book is certainly a useful introduction to a period of History often overlooked in scholarly circles.

[Todor Lankov · Rating 4 out of 5]

For what it sets out to do absolutely captivating and enticing. The only reason it’s not a masterpiece is because it lacks context in certain places but regardless of that it condenses 1100 years of history in less than 300 pages. Overall magnificent!

[Eric Vanhove · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very nice intro to Byzantine history that could have benefited from a little more editing.

[Rene B. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Comprehensive, nice details (of which I never heard before) and a handy companion to all the emperors of Byzantium.

[Tony Gualtieri · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a fun book to read, but I wouldn't recommend it as a first history of Byzantium. It's more for revisiting familiar territory. The illustrations are excellent.

[Avid · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good overview but very little detail.

[Anton Tymkiv · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really good

Still wrongly using term “Russia, russian” when refering to Rus while mentioning Ukraine in foreword

Enjoyed the pacing of book