History of the Byzantine Empire, 324-1453, Volume I

by Alexander Vasiliev

“This is the revised English translation from the original work in Russian of the history of the Great Byzantine Empire. It is the most complete and thorough work on this subject. From it we get a wonderful panorama of the events and developments of the struggles of early Christianity, both western and eastern, with all of its remains of the wonderful productions of art, architecture, and learning.”—Southwestern Journal of Theology

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Medieval, Ancient History

374 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1925

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

[Garriguscarraig · Rating 4 out of 5]

About 200 pages into the book, & I guess I just want to say there are some odd translation choices made. (1) The Russians call the Iberian peninsula the "Pyrenean peninsula". The translator retains the Russianism. (2) Alternate spellings are given for some of the Arabic/Turkic names. I can't imagine why. Pick a Romanization approach & stick with it. It's not a book about Arabic; it's a book about history. And it doesn't matter how it's handled in the Russian original. (3) Maybe it's normal for a Russian to write "fourth decade of the eleventh century", but if they changed every instance of that to the functionally equivalent "1030s", they could have saved a forest. OK rant over.

Now having finished this volume I'll say it's well written & a good intro to the topic for someone with only the vaguest outline of the subject matter. And it's not as church-centered as my brother implied.

[AmosZhu · Rating 4 out of 5]

Recommended by my tutor, and it's a quite clear book with fluent words and sentences. It introduced some sources which are really important. Furthermore, personally I like the section of "literature, learning and art" at every end of chapters. In this term, it's quite suitable to beginners or those who are interested in that period. However, some knowledge or historical events are just a bit vague so that it's not easy for a beginner to get an overall comprehension of the history of Byzantine.

[Carlos Wang · Rating 5 out of 5]

這兩年以拜占庭為主題的書突然如湧泉般的爆發，光是台灣繁體書市就出了三本以伊斯坦堡為名的作品。簡體書市也不遑多讓，包括計畫中的恐怕就要超過五部，熱愛東羅馬的讀者如果不慎選，恐怕荷包要大失血了。

而本文即將要介紹的這本，由俄裔美國學者A.A.瓦西列夫(A.A.Vasiliev)所撰寫的《拜占庭帝國史》，則是個人認為其中最不可忽視的作品。

瓦西列夫是國際學界公認，二十世紀最重要的拜占庭學者之一，他受教於俄國，在歐陸遊學，十月革命之後移居美國。這部作品在20年代問世，歷久不衰，翻譯成各種語言並在50年代修訂為最終版，中譯本即據此譯出。瓦西列夫這部作品跟我們慣常讀到的，來自歐美的作品最大不同的，在於他引用了大量的拜占庭原始資料外，還有許多來自俄國、東歐的研究，而這方面，個人認為這是非常重要的差別。拜占庭對東歐影響很深，而華文圈的拜占庭書籍卻很少引進這區學者的作品，是個遺憾跟缺陷。誠如譯者徐佳玲老師所言，本書的翻譯，可以大力的補強這塊空白。

這部作品並非純粹的敘事史編年體，瓦西列夫把帝國按照某些節點分成各個時代，然後依照主題分門別類的討論，從內政到外交、社會、藝術人文；他會先簡單的破題，接著引用各方史料、學說觀點，最後再引導出自己的結論。讀者觀看本書時，可以先跟著瓦西列夫的思維走一遍，回頭再重新審視其所言是否有理，這過程中想必是大有收穫。

例如，他對於最關鍵及重要的第四次十字軍的討論。

作者引用了一份來自俄國的史料《諾夫哥羅德編年史》指出的，十字軍是受到伊薩克之子阿列克修斯的引誘，才將皇帝跟教皇的訓誡拋在腦後，它們確實要為此負責。

而造成這樣的後果，學者們分成“偶然事件派”跟“預謀事件派”兩種觀點。前者認為，雖然十字軍被威尼斯逼著前往札拉，但基本目標依然不變，直到阿列克修斯突然出現並提出請求，這才徹底轉向；後者又分成兩派，一派認為這一切都是威尼斯總督丹多羅的套路，是為了鞏固遭到威脅的東方利益，另一派則認為是德意志士瓦本的腓力企圖想幫助自己小舅子復國所致。

學術界曾為此爭論不休，但現在比較能接受的結論是，參與事件的幾位主要角色如教皇、威尼斯與拜占庭皇室都各有動機，他們在追求自身目標中的交互行為構成了複雜的現象，以致於整個事件看起來撲朔迷離。它既存在陰謀也存在著偶然，畢竟沒人能全盤預料到每一步發展，大家都是機會主義，但至少可以確定的是，它是許多人想要的結果。

而1204年君士坦丁堡的陷落也決定了這個東方帝國的命運，它再也無法恢復到12世紀前的榮景了。但作者也直言，這對聖地的收復並沒有任何的幫助，甚至耽誤了這一項事業。

讀者認不認同，就見仁見智囉。


另外，這邊必須給予譯者徐家玲老師肯定的掌聲。按照其譯後記的說法，她在三十年前初識本書時，即動念翻譯，然後經過二十年的努力，方才有此作品交付世人。誠如前面所述，瓦西列夫在其作品中引用了許多不同語言的資料，研究，這才是本書最難翻譯之所在。徐家玲老師為此花了的心血，令人敬佩。對比華東師範之前的那本《拜占庭簡史》之品質，更顯得其態度之審慎。


順道一提。瓦西列夫的《拜占庭帝國史》是屬於中進階的作品，推薦要購買之前，最還是先找本通史讀過較好。譯者徐家玲老師所著的，與陳志強先生的書是不錯的選擇。

[Sinan Öner]

Russian Historian Vasiliev's "History of the Byzantine Empire, 324-1453" is one of the best history books in the historiography of Byzantine! Vasiliev questions the Byzantine society during the history, searchs the documents of Byzantine state's in detail, tries to describe the different stages of Byzantine political, legal, social history. Vasiliev's approach to the Byzantine state explains the "complexity" of Byzantine history in his historiography. After the "collapse" of Roman state, in Constantinople (Istanbul), the Byzantine state (Eastern Roman) was founded, structured, developed by the Byzantine ruling classes - the Byzantine state was based on "the slavery" mostly, then the Byzantine "feudality" was structured, so, the Byzantine state was "a class society" during the history. Vasiliev's "History of the Byzantine Empire, 324-1453" is the historical description of Byzantine which uses the modern historiographical rules, methodology and the ways of comprehensing.

[Yoder · Rating 4 out of 5]

Vasiliev's history of the byzantine empire is remarkably helpful and educational as it provides a solid overview of the history of the Byzantine empire. I was personally surprised how much I gleaned from this book about topics tangentially related to the subject matter. This book reads like a textbook but it incredibly clear and deliberate in its delivery.

If you are interested in the Byzantines I highly recommend this. I already have Volume II on my shelf.

[Aaron Cliff · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gives you all the tools to go out and research the time periods mentioned by yourself. You can tell vasiliev just loved the byzantine empire and didn't care who was doing the research, as long as it was getting done.

[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 II. Since this was written quite a long time ago, I wonder how perspectives on the Byzantines have changed since.

[جود العجمي · Rating 3 out of 5]

In general This book it's a quite clear and i think it's very important for beginners or those who interested in that period.

[Kevin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Little too much on art and culture and not enough on accomplishments and historical impact. 3 pages on the Nicaea council and 2 on the founding on constantinople, not enough for two cornerstones of their development and impact. All a good overview.

[Marks54 · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was the basic reference in a year long survey on Byzantium that I took at Georgetown in 1974-75. The transition out of the Roman era into the high point of the Byzantine Empire is a really good story and I greatly enjoyed the class.

[Al · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have the original 1 volume edition. Very good work which complements Ostrogorsky and should be read comparatively with Ostrogorsky's History of the Byzantine State.

[Avi Shmueli · Rating 1 out of 5]

History writing at its worse, reads more like a historical artifact than a story or fact.

[Dinko · Rating 1 out of 5]

Spends more time describing his sources than discussing history.