The New Roman Empire: A History of Byzantium

by Anthony Kaldellis

A major new history of the eastern Roman Empire, from Constantine to 1453. In recent decades, the study of the Eastern Roman Empire, also known as Byzantium, has been revolutionized by new approaches and more sophisticated models for how its society and state operated. No longer looked upon as a pale facsimile of classical Rome, Byzantium is now considered a vigorous state of its own, inheritor of many of Rome's features, and a vital node in the first truly globalized world. The New Roman Empire is the first full, single-author history of the eastern Roman empire to appear in over a generation. Covering political and military history as well as all the major changes in religion, society, demography, and economy, Anthony Kaldellis's volume is divided into ten chronological sections which begin with the foundation of Constantinople in 324 AD and end with the fall of the empire to the Ottoman Turks in the fifteenth century. The book incorporates new findings, explains recent interpretive models, and presents well-known historical characters and events in a new light.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Ancient History, Roman History, European History, Medieval, World History

1160 pages, Hardcover

First published November 1, 2023

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

[Erik Champenois · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is my favorite book of the year and the culmination of my reading of Roman history in 2023. It's not a quick read: covering over a millennium of Eastern Roman history, the book is over 1100 pages (918 pages + notes and misc.), and has a relatively small font. "The New Roman Empire" is sweeping in its scope, covering an Empire whose history (and territory) looked very different at its beginning, midpoint, and end.

The early chapters set the foundation by discussing the impact of Constantine, the relationship between the New Rome and the old Western Empire, government and the social order, and Christianity. It is especially interesting to see how the transition from paganism to Christianity played out. Throughout the book, Kaldellis devotes much attention to the seemingly endless councils and conflicts within Christianity, both touching on the theological matters (so much parsing of substances, natures, energies, etc.) and on the power dynamics involved - both from an ecclesiastical (within East Rome and vis-à-vis the Popes), imperial, and geopolitical perspective. Some reviewers have found this coverage excessive, but a history of the eastern Roman empire that doesn't cover those aspects of its history - so important to the Romans themselves - would not be a comprehensive history. Besides, some reviewers have exaggerated the extent to which the book focuses on religious matters: in my read, the book covers dynastic, geopolitical, religious, and cultural elements, in approximately that order of prioritization.

There is too much in this book to cover in this review, so I'll highlight just a couple of things that I found most illuminating. At the top of that list is Kaldellis' coverage of the sack of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade of 1204 and specifically him calling out the colonial nature of the resulting occupation. Given my interest in not only the history of empire but of colonialism, I appreciated Kaldellis directly connecting the events of the 1200s with later phases of western colonialism. What ultimately happened throughout the world happened in East Rome: the carving up of territories by western powers, the imposition of outside systems of governance structures, the reduction of the natives to second-class status, the element of racism, and the use of religious justification. The Papacy, by the way, stands out as a particular arrogant and menacing institution vis-à-vis the East Romans, both during the Crusades and in negotiations around union in the centuries afterwards.

Something else I found noteworthy was the focus on East Roman identity: while the east Roman empire is today mostly known as Byzantium, and while westerners ended up describing the population as Greek, the population saw themselves as Romans first and foremost. Apparently, (and aside from Romans moving West and identifying as Greek because they were recognized as such), it was only with the 19th century Greek Revolution that this self-identification changed from Roman to Greek. Aside from this ethnic identity, Kaldellis also demonstrates how the Romans viewed themselves as a society that embraced the common good, and one where popular support or opposition had to be taken into account, not usually one where an Emperor could exert power without consideration of public opinion.

Written in enjoyable prose, "The New Roman Empire" covers all periods quite well, a feat considering the 1100+ year period covered. I learned so much about the foundations of European history, especially Southeast European and Italian history. One cannot fully understand European history without understanding the East Roman empire, and this book provides a much needed, up to date overview. I'd go as far as to say that "The New Roman Empire" is required reading for anyone who's into European history. Highly recommended.

[Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

About 1000 pages covering Byzantine history from beginning to end. I laughed, I cheered, I cried. If you will only ever read one book make sure it is this one.

[Noé Hernández · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book achieved a lot of things, first of all it successfully reconstructs the history of Romanía as a changing continuum that constantly reflected upon its pagan and republican past while adapted and innovated against new historical challenges.

The great historiographic objective that Kaldellis states for this book (I think) is exactly this, to understand and portray Romanía as a living entity to set aside the Gibbonian paradigm of static, decrepit and condemned fake-empire, this he achieves masterfully pulling from a wide variety of sources, actors and processes.

He also achieves the reinvigoration of "Byzantinist" studies, making use of the most up-to-date research around critical aspects of Romanía, such as iconomachy, the pronoia system, the Komnenian aristocratic change, the 1204 fall and the final 1453 fall.

[Matthew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Kaldellis' general history of Byzantium is a highly readable academic inspection of over 1000 years of Roman history. Starting in the 4th century, "Romania" is shown to be both the ancient polity of the Romans and a "New" innovation.

What sets Kaldellis' work out from prior histories is his perspective of Roman republicanism and national identity that are constantly reinforced throughout the text. Alongside political, economic, and cultural evidence bases this provides the narrative with a common provable theme.

Alongside his academic yet engaging writing style, maps, as well as numerous images makes the book excellent for both beginners and experienced readers.

The bibliography and index are also extensive, making this an extremely useful resource to find further readings.

[Paul Dembina · Rating 4 out of 5]

I originally read about the Eastern Roman Empire (aka Byzantine) in John Julius Norwich spellbinding 3 volume history of Byzantium which was chock full of fascinating anecdotes.

This single volume history is probably much more accurate but in the process loses the narrative interest of Norwich's books.

The procession of emperors with similar names (John's, Michael's, Andronikos's etc) with the same family names (Komnenos & Palaiologos for example) cropping up over and over made it hard to keep track

However once more familiar actors come into the picture such as the Normans and the Ottomans and the empire starts to fade, the pathos is hard to avoid

[Harry Hall · Rating 5 out of 5]

A complete and utter joy to read. A real achievement to make a book encompassing over a millennium of history flow this well, and I would recommend it to anyone interested in Byzantium (or I should say Romanía) to any degree.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

"The New Roman Empire: A History of Byzantium" by Anthony Kaldellis fills a significant gap in the historiography of east Rome. With the last comprehensive narrative histories being quite outdated, this book is a much-needed addition to the literature. Its writing is both accessible and engaging, and surprisingly humorous at times, making it a pleasure to read.

This book is essential because it addresses the outdated nature of previous works on east Roman history, while giving a holistic view of the vast time span. Kaldellis’s comprehensive approach provides a fresh perspective that was long overdue.

Kaldellis challenges outdated notions of the Eastern Roman Empire. He consistently uses the term "Roman" instead of "Byzantine," which honours the self-identification of the empire's inhabitants. Additionally, his use of original names rather than anglicised versions enhances the book's authenticity and respect for historical context.

While some reviewers conplain that the book spends too much time on church history, I found this focus both vital and well-handled. The thorough coverage of church history is crucial for understanding the broader context of the empire, even if my personal preference leaned towards the geopolitical sections.

I have to admit that I put the book down for several months upon reaching The Fourth Crusade. This wasn't due to any lack of quality in the writing but rather because I was so invested in the narrative that I found it quite depressing to read. The melancholy feeling lingered from The Fourth Crusade to 1453, knowing there wasn't going to be another miraculous recovery.

Despite the eventual fall, I really enjoyed how Kaldellis emphasised the enduring nature of the Roman state. As he pointed out, by 1453 it was by far the oldest state in the world, and had seen off most of its rivals from past centuries. The conclusion to draw isn't that they were weak because they fell, but that they were resilient because of how long they held on despite being surrounded by enemies who wanted to tear them down for so long.

This book has provided me with a solid foundation for understanding late antique and medieval Roman history. It is a resource I will continue to reference for years to come and one that I will revisit for spot-reading various sections.

Overall, "The New Roman Empire" by Anthony Kaldellis is essential reading for anyone interested in east Roman history. It challenges outdated views, provides a comprehensive and accessible narrative, and I highly recommend it.

[Rambling Raconteur · Rating 5 out of 5]

https://youtu.be/j2ymD77Vp0A?si=OelLz...

[Laika · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have an aspiration to read one work of history or otherwise intellectually virtuous nonfiction every month. I have fallen a bit off of that, entirely and specifically because of this book in particular – at over 900 pages of densely packed texted supported by a couple hundred more of glossaries, tables, photographs, maps and citations, this is more intellectually weighty than anything else I’ve read all year. Possibly combined.

Anthony Kaldellis is a leading academic historian of the Eastern Roman Empire, who is both horrifyingly productive writing journal articles and monographs and (how I know him) runs his own and appears on many, many other podcasts. This is a project he was talking about for some time, a comprehensive introductory survey of the history of the Eastern Roman Empire, from the Constantine founding his New Rome on the Bosporus to the Ottoman Conquest a millennium later. The narrative is largely political, but whenever the surviving sources permit it snapshots of social and economic relationships and digressions into cultural history appear as well. As that survey, it is wholly successful – obviously there are limits to how much depth any particular area can be treated (even with a 4-digit page count, covering a millenium across half the Mediterranean basin requires some harsh prioritization), but everything is at least touched on, and every era is treated with interest and depth. While hardly light reading, the book really doesn’t require any familiarity with the subject or (thankfully) the existing academic discourse around it. I doubt it’s going to be pleasure reading for most people, but it seems ideal as, say, a reference text for an undergraduate course or similar.

The main way that Kaldellis manages to fit the entire history of the Eastern Roman (not Byzantine, he’s very emphatic about this) into a single volume is with a bit of sleight of hand that is also one of his main theses – that for the vast majority of its history, the politics of the Empire and of the city of Constantinople are functionally interchangeable. To understand the pressures and politics of Court and City is to have an excellent model for predicting and deciphering imperial politics, and to understand the laws and policies of the imperial government knowledge the state of things in the City is irreplaceable. Far more than any peer state it ever encounters, the Empire has a centralized, centrally-focused political and military elite, and a coherent and deeply felt popular conception among its subjects that they were Roman and the heart of the state was Constantinople. Kaldellis reiterates again and again that for most of its history, for most of its subjects, it was closer to a modern nation-state than an empire in the traditionally understood sense. There was a Roman identity and a sense of Roman patriotism that left people willing to pay taxes and follow laws in good times and fight and die in bad ways, almost until the very end.

Which leads naturally to another of Kaldellis’ main points – that the Eastern Roman Empire was as much or more a republic whose leadership was legitimized by good governance and popular acclaim as it was a monarchy justified by divine sanction or (certainly) any sort of dynastic principle. There was not, at any point in the millennium of Eastern Roman history, ever any sort of settled or generally accepted principles of succession to the throne that lasted for more than one generation – various Emperor’s attempted to secure the throne for their sons, with wildly varying degrees of success, but it all came down to quite ad-hoc negotiations and contests between generals, courtiers, and Constantinople’s mob. That an Emperor worked tirelessly and selflessly for the good of the Roman polity was the main thing to legitimatize them, and arguments that they were failing to do so were often followed by usurpation attempts. Coups and rebellions of various scales were unsurprisingly common, though the fact that the state remained so united and coherent for so long despite this is probably the strong single argument in favour of Kaldellis’ stance on the strength of the shared Roman identity and the degree to which the political elite’s ambitions revolved entirely around Constantinople.
Those two arguments combine to form the book’s main thesis about why exactly the Eastern Roman Empire was able to survive and (mostly) thrive for literally a thousand years after the fall of the West – it was a relatively competent and meritocratic state, deeply entrenched in the lives of its subjects and (on the whole) legitimized itself through filling useful roles in their lives and being responsive to their petitions and demands. Equally important, it was served by a competitive and oft-vicious political elite that was nonetheless both relatively open to talented new members from below and beyond their ranks and which was far more interested in winning honour and glory through the empire (and riches through imperial service and favors) than establishing their own local fiefdoms and breaking apart the state to secure their own local power.

All of which combined is about as important in emphasis and the passion behind the writing as the book’s final main thesis – that the Eastern Roman (‘Byzantine’) Empire has been slandered, disrespected and forgotten in the western historical memory from almost the word go, that just about every part of that historical memory is wrong in both the generalities and particulars, and that you the reader should care about and respect the Empire of the Romans more than you do.

...okay, I exaggerate. But that is kind of the reading experience here – this is a deeply, deeply partisan book. There’s a tendency in every serious biography that the author will either at least slightly fall in love with and start apologizing for their subject or (less often) just loathe them beyond all restraint. Kaldellis is the former option but for an imperial polity that dominated the Eastern Mediterranean for centuries. Every individual point is, I’m certain, carefully research and presents the latest scholarship. But as a matter of tone and emphasis, this is clearly a book that is trying to intervene and act as a correction to an existing orientalist understanding of the empire and how it functioned, not present a naive, and even-handed take. Which is mostly a matter of tone and emphasis – the atrocities and injustices visited upon the Roman people by various foreign raiders and invaders are dwelt upon at length, while those they inflicted upon foreigners are only occasionally mentioned, and those inflicted by the government and elite upon the Roman population are pretty actively minimized. The text explains a popular narrative about some event or another and then corrects it on several different occasions, and the corrected version always lionizes the Empire by comparison. The narrative positively drips with contempt and scorn for latin arguments about translatio imperii and the pedigree of the Holy Roman Empire. And so on. As I said, I have no doubts about the care taken with any particular aspect here, but it seems pretty clearly to be intended as an antithesis to an existing understanding of things, no something to be read naively with totally fresh eyes.

Whatever they might lack in academic objectivity, the areas where the book clearly has a strong opinion and can’t help but make its contempt for one party or another in a dispute are pretty reliably the most entertaining to actually read. The narrative’s opinion on the various theological disputes which caused so much discord and civil strife among the Christian church in late antiquity, for example, basically boils down to ‘this was all so much needless bullshit where even the partisans of each side often didn’t understand what they were arguing, and which consumed vastly disproportionate amounts of imperial time and attention and caused real unrest for absolutely no reason at all except personality conflicts and clout-chasing’. All of which is still far kind than it is to the claims of papal supremacy and attempts to establish a universal and centralized church which drove the development of Latin Catholicism (and no small amount of conflict between Catholic Europe and the Empire).

The book tries at certain points, and both the absurdly vast time frame covered and the lack of sources that would really allow thorough answers to the question both militate against it, but I do wish a bit more time had been spent on the actual mechanics of how roman day-to-day government and administration changes over time – the exact blow-by-blow accounts of christological controversies and recitation of seemingly every military campaign ever led by any Emperor could probably have been abridged to make room (though Kaldelllis does win immense points from me for rarely-if-ever devoting significant word count to the particulars of a battle beyond who was involved, the result and their consequences). Just in terms of interest and detail, the book also seemed much more preoccupied with the Empire's eras of imperial splendour and hegemony than periods where events conspired against it (and with the Late Antique and Early Medieval glory days in particular) – though this, again, is most likely just a reaction to the popular memory of the Empire and its own focuses.

I really can’t say I recommend this book, at least not as easy reading or something light to pick for a book club (if you find yourself in need of an actual club, then a thousand pages in hardcover binding will probably work as well as anything, though). But if, like me, you occasionally idly dream of becoming independently wealthy enough to go back to grab school and become an aimless dilettante of a historian, and also spend far too much time making settings for rpg campaigns, this book is about a dozen pounds of catnip for you.

[Giorgos Sardelis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Η μελέτη και συγγραφή της «βυζαντινής» ιστορίας έχουν τις δικές τους ιδιαιτερότητες και απαιτήσεις. Η Μεσαιωνική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία (Ρωμανία ή Βυζάντιο) διήρκησε μια εξωφρενικά μεγάλη χρονική περίοδο, πέρασε από διάφορες φάσεις και η ιστόριση της βασίζεται σε ένα πλήθος πρωτογενών πηγών, διασκορπισμένων σε διάφορα μέρη και πολλές φορές σε διαφορετικές γλώσσες. Κυρίως όμως, η ιστορία αυτή εμπεριέχει ιδεολογία και θρησκεία που εξαρτώνται άμεσα από την κουλτούρα αλλά και τα εντελώς προσωπικά αισθητήρια, τις εμπειρίες και τα αντανακλαστικά τόσο του ιστορικού όσο και του αναγνώστη. Επιπλέον, η μελέτη της βάζει πρόσθετες προκλήσεις στον Έλληνα και στην Ελληνίδα, αφού μας εμπλέκει άμεσα γεωγραφικά, ιστορικά, πολιτισμικά, πολιτικά και θρησκευτικά.

Το πρόβλημα με τον Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία δεν είναι ότι διχάζει η ύπαρξη της. Διχάζει η απώλεια της. Ο πολιτισμός της μαζί με την γλώσσα της, η θρησκεία της αλλά και ως κρατική οντότητα, η «κληρονομιά» της Ρωμανίας εμπλέκει, με τον έναν ή τον άλλο τρόπο, διάφορα εθνικά κράτη που σχηματίστηκαν στα εδάφη της, αλλά και χριστιανικές εκκλησίες.
Η εικόνα, λοιπόν, που έχουμε εμείς - οι σημερινοί Έλληνες - για το «Βυζάντιο» περνά κυρίως μέσα από τα φίλτρα της Εκκλησίας της Ελλάδος, του νέου ελληνικού κράτους, των δυτικοευρωπαίων, ενώ κάποια στιγμή στην εξίσωση μπήκαν δυναμικά και οι πηγές (ή οι ματιές) της Μόσχας και των βαλκανικών χωρών. Ιδεολογικοπολιτικά, ενώ η δεξιά κατέχει τα πρωτεία στην αρχαία ελληνική ιστορία και η αριστερά έχει επικρατήσει στη νεότερη, το «Βυζάντιο» (ο «Ελληνικός Μεσαίωνας») παραμένει εν πολλοίς ένα ανοιχτό πεδίο πολύ συναισθηματικών και λιγότερο επιστημονικών διαξιφισμών.
Κατά συνέπεια, είναι σύνηθες να ανακαλύπτουμε εκ διαμέτρου αντίθετες οπτικές της «βυζαντινής» εμπειρίας στους διάφορους συγγραφείς που διαβάζουμε. Ωστόσο τα τελευταία χρόνια γίνεται μια προσπάθεια από μερίδα της νέας γενιάς βυζαντινολόγων (εντός και εκτός Ελλάδος) να συγκεντρωθεί - όσο γίνεται - το τεράστιο υλικό που υπάρχει και μαζί με την αρχαιολογία να επανεξεταστεί συνολικά. Σε αυτούς ανήκει και ο Αντώνιος Καλδέλλης.

Τον καθηγητή Αντώνιο Καλδέλλη τον παρακολουθώ συγγραφικά αλλά και μέσω του πόντκαστ του, Byzantium and Friends ή μέσω εκπομπών και πόντκαστ άλλων (όπως του Robin Pierson, The History of Byzantium) καθώς και από διαλέξεις. Τον συγκαταλέγω ανάμεσα στους κορυφαίους και πρωτοποριακούς βυζαντινολόγους της εποχής μας, δεδομένου ότι εκτός από εξαιρετικός μελετητής, γράφει και μιλάει σε μια κατανοητή, σύγχρονη γλώσσα, ενώ τολμάει να βγει έξω από τα κυρίαρχα σχήματα και μοντέλα.
Στο ανά χείρας βιβλίο, λοιπόν, ο Καλδέλλης δεν εξιστορεί απλά. Γράφει με άποψη την πρώτη ολοκληρωμένη ιστορία της Ανατολικής Ρωμαϊκής Αυτοκρατορίας όπου γίνεται χρήση των ονομάτων που επέλεξε εκείνη η κοινωνία για τον εαυτό της και όχι η αυθαίρετη ονοματοδοσία («Βυζάντιο») που ακολούθησε. Ο Καλδέλλης, λοιπόν, χρησιμοποιεί την ορολογία που αναφέρεται στις πηγές και μιλά για τον «ρωμαϊκό λαό» και τη «ρωμαϊκή πολιτεία». Είναι πολύ προσεκτικός στο να εξηγεί και να στηρίζει τις απόψεις του με ένα πλήθος μεσαιωνικών κειμένων και αρχαιολογικών ευρημάτων. Παράλληλα δεν αμελεί να αναφερθεί στην πορεία της «βυζαντινολογίας», γκρεμίζοντας πολλά από τα στερεότυπα, τους μύθους και τις παρεξηγήσεις, αν και το επόμενο του βιβλίο θα διαπραγματεύεται ειδικά αυτό το θέμα ( “Phantom Byzantium: Europe, Empire, and Identity from Late Antiquity to World War II”).

Ένα κλασικό στερεότυπο για τη Μεσαιωνική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία είναι το πολυσυζητημένο θέμα της φεουδαρχίας. Ο καθηγητής στοιχειοθετεί πως το οικογενειακό αγρόκτημα, ως βάση της γεωργικής παραγωγής, δεν απαλείφθηκε ποτέ από κάποια «βυζαντινή» πρωτοφεουδαρχική ή φεουδαρχική κτήση. Ο Καλδέλλης παρουσιάζει τον ιδιόκτητο πλούτο της ελίτ ως «κρατικοδίαιτο», βασισμένο κυρίως στον χρυσό που πλήρωνε ο αυτοκράτορας και το κράτος, εν είδει μισθού, σε πρόσωπα, ανάλογα των μη-κληρονομήσιμων τίτλων (πραγματικών ή τιμητικών θέσεων στον κρατικό μηχανισμό) που τους παρείχε το παλάτι. Σε αυτούς του «δημόσιους λειτουργούς», η κατοχή γης και τα κέρδη από την ιδιωτική παραγωγή ή το ελεύθερο εμπόριο δεν εξασφάλιζαν τίποτα. Γι’ αυτό και δεν υπήρξε σοβαρή επένδυση στους τομείς αυτούς.
Πιο συγκεκριμένα στο θέμα της κατοχής γης, η χορήγηση της πρόνοιας ή το θεματικό σύστημα διοίκησης ΔΕΝ έκαναν κάποιον γαιοκτήμονα. Δεν υπήρχαν αποκλειστικές και ιδιωτικές περιοχές ή ιδιωτικά κάστρα, αποκομμένα από τον κεντρικό νόμο και με την ίδια ευχέρεια που το κράτος παραχωρούσε γη, με την ίδια ευκολία την έπαιρνε πίσω. Σε αυτό θα πρέπει να συνυπολογιστεί ότι η προσωπική ιδιωτική γη μειωνόταν από γενιά σε γενιά, αφού μοιραζόταν δια μέσου της κληρονομιάς σε γιούς και κόρες που είχαν νόμιμη μοίρα. Όλα τα προηγούμενα, μαζί με την απώλεια εδαφών της αυτοκρατορίας, έκαναν την κατοχή γης ασταθέστατο παράγοντα ισχύς, για ν�� βασιστεί επάνω της η οποιαδήποτε κοινωνική ομάδα.

Μια άλλη παρεξήγηση που σπεύδει να διορθώσει ο Καλδέλλης είναι η φύση της αυτοκρατορίας. Το «Βυζάντιο» δεν ήταν δυναστικό, με την έννοια ότι ήταν η συνέχεια μιας πολιτείας και όχι μια οντότητα που είχε δημιουργηθεί από κάποια οικογένεια. Δηλαδή είχε προηγηθεί μια ισχυρά εδραιωμένη αντίληψη της δημόσιας σφαίρας πάνω στον γεωγραφικό χάρτη ως κάτι που χρειαζόταν να κυβερνάται αλλά σε καμία περίπτωση να κατέχεται. Κανείς και καμία δεν είχε οποιαδήποτε δικαίωμα στο θρόνο της Κωνσταντινούπολης, πέρα από αυτό που μπορούσε να πείσει τους άλλους να αναγνωρίσουν και για όσο μπορούσε να τους πείσει. Κατά συνέπεια ο/η αυτοκράτορας-α ή οποιαδήποτε άλλη ομάδα ανθρώπων δεν μπορούσαν να κατέχουν την πολιτεία. Και ε��ν προσπαθούσαν κάποιοι να κινηθούν προς αυτή την κατεύθυνση βρίσκονταν αντιμέτωποι με τις άλλες κοινωνικές ομάδες και θεσμούς (ελίτ, στρατιωτικοί, γραφειοκράτες, κλήρος, λαός κτλ.) που προηγουμένως τους είχαν στηρίξει.

Ένας τρίτος μύθος για το «Βυζάντιο» είναι ο ρόλος της θρησκείας και της εκκλησίας. Ο Καλδέλλης θα μπορούσε να εμβαθύνει λίγο περισσότερο, διαχωρίζοντας τα σε κάποια σημεία δεδομένου ότι ο Χριστιανισμός απελευθέρωσε ανεξάρτητες δυνάμεις εκτός του πολιτικο-θρησκευτικού κατεστημένου. Σε κάθε περίπτωση, για τον Καλδέλλη, η Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία δεν ήταν θεοκρατική, αφού ήταν ο Χριστιανισμός αυτός που ρωμαιοποιήθηκε και όχι η Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία που χριστιανοποιήθηκε, παρότι εκχριστιανίστηκε. Με άλλα λόγια, φέρει την εκκλησία και τους λειτουργούς της να επηρεάζουν πολύ λίγο, επί του πεδίου (αντίθετα με τις αφηγήσεις τους), τη ρωμαϊκή πολιτική σκηνή, την κοινωνία, την οικονομία, τους πολέμους, την εξωτερική πολιτική κτλ. Το σχήμα που αναφέρει είναι ότι η εκκλησία ελεγχόταν από τον βυζαντινό αυτοκράτορα και ο αυτοκράτορας χρειαζόταν την έγκριση του λαϊκού στρώματος και τη στήριξη του στρατού. Λαός και στρατός θα υποστήριζαν τον βασιλέα που θα έκανε τη δουλεία του καλά ή καλύτερα (πολεμικές επιτυχίες, ισορροπημένη οικονομική πολιτική, κοινωνική ευδαιμονία), μη συμμετέχοντας μαζικά και ενεργά στα ενδοεκκλησιαστικά ζητήματα. Για παράδειγμα, ο Καλδέλλης παρουσιάζει στοιχεία που δείχνουν ότι η περίφημη Εικονομαχία άφησε σχεδόν αδιάφορη τη μεγάλη μερίδα του κόσμου - αν την αντιλήφθηκε ή την κατάλαβε ποτέ, παρότι η εικόνα που παρουσιάζουν τα εκκλησιαστικά κείμενα δείχνει διαφορετική.

Ωστόσο, εδώ θα έπρεπε να υπάρχει μια μεγαλύτερη συγκεκριμενοποίηση. Δηλαδή, προφανώς η χριστιανική εκκλησία τέθηκε στους μηχανισμούς και τις δομές του ρωμαϊκού κράτους, ωστόσο ο Χριστιανισμός ωρίμασε μέσα από μια χρόνια αντίθεση και σύνθεση με την κλασική ελληνική φιλοσοφία και μετασχηματίστηκε σε ιδεολογικό άξονα της αυτοκρατορίας. Παρότι ο Καλδέλλης δεν το τονίζει ιδιαίτερα, μέσα από το έργο του φαίνεται ότι οι θεολογικές έριδες, εκτός από πολιτικό εργαλείο και αφορμή για παιχνίδια εξουσίας, είχαν και τοπικιστικό πρόσημο μεταξύ κέντρων με διαφορετικό ιστορικό φορτίο (Κωνσταντινούπολη, Ρώμη, Αλεξάνδρεια, Αντιόχεια). Ταυτόχρονα, οι θεολογικές διαμάχες ήταν αναμφισβήτητα και ειλικρινείς φιλοσοφικές και ιδεολογικές διαφωνίες για τη σχέση ανθρώπου και Θείου με προεκτάσεις στον τρόπο ζωής και στο μοντέλο οργάνωσης και διοίκησης. Για παράδειγμα, είχε συνέπειες για τη θέση της γυναίκας το εάν μια φτωχή γυναίκα γέννησε Θεό ή άνθρωπο. Οι «βυζαντινές» - ειδικά οι χήρες - κληρονομούσαν περιουσίες, κατείχαν και λειτουργούσαν καταστήματα, και ήταν δυναμικοί οικονομικοί παράγοντες. Κάποιες σπούδαζαν, ενώ άλλες έπαιξαν κορυφαίο πολιτικό ρόλο, φανερό ή σκιερό.

Ο Ανατολικός (ή ελληνικός) Χριστιανισμός, τουλάχιστον ιδεολογικά, έθετε περιορισμούς στην άσκηση εξουσίας από τους άνδρες, τον θρόνο και τις ισχυρές ομάδες γύρω από αυτόν, ενώ ευνοούσε την ανέλιξη ανεξαρτήτως φύλου ή κάστας. Ταυτόχρονα μετέδωσε στην πολιτική σφαίρα την προσαρμοστικότητα του και την «υποχρεωτική» κοινωνική αλληλεγγύη. Ο Καλδέλλης σχετίζει τη φιλολαϊκή πολιτική και νομοθεσία με τη θέληση του παλατιού να περιορίσει την αριστοκρατία, αλλά κυρίως την ίδια την εκκλησία. Συνδέει, όμως, την αντικατάσταση της θανατικής ποινής από τον ακρωτηριασμό άκρων στην Εκλογή του Λέοντος Γ΄με τις χριστιανικές γραφές. Μάλλον, ο καθηγητής υποπτεύεται ότι οι αλλαγές στα ήθη και στη νομοθεσία θα συνέβαιναν και χωρίς τον Χριστιανισμό, αφού ήταν η συνέχεια μιας πορείας που είχε ξεκινήσει ήδη.

Σε κάθε περίπτωση, ο Καλδέλλης κάνει αυτό που ζητάμε από έναν σοβαρό ιστορικό και όχι από ένα θεολόγο ή πολιτικό φιλόσοφο. Μας αποκωδικοποιεί, μας «γειώνει» και μας βάζει το πλαίσιο στα γεγονότα και στα γραπτά (εκκλησιαστικά και μη) της εποχής, κάποια από τα οποία είναι εξαιρετικά στρατευμένα ή τουλάχιστον προκατειλημμένα. Το συγκεκριμένο βιβλίο του Καλδέλλη έχει δεχθεί κριτικές ως προς την έκταση που καταλαμβάνει η εκκλησιαστική ιστορία. Προσωπικά διαφωνώ με αυτές τις κριτικές. Αναπόφευκτα, μια ολοκληρωμένη ματιά της «βυζαντινής» ιστορίας περιλαμβάνει και ένα μεγάλο τμήμα της συνολική χριστιανικής πορείας με τα φίλτρα της ιστορικής επιστήμης αλλά και την προσωπική ματιά του ιστορικού. Το να θέλει να καταλάβει κάποιος τη Ρωμανία, παρακάμπτοντας τον Χριστιανισμό είναι σαν να θέλει να καταλάβει την ΕΣΣΔ, αγνοώντας τον σοσιαλισμό ή τις ΗΠΑ, αποφεύγοντας τον φιλελευθερισμό.

Βέβαια ο Χριστιανισμός ήταν μια μόνο από τις συνιστώσες της ρωμαιό-βυζαντινής εμπειρίας. Οι άλλες δύο ήταν η κλασική ελληνική παιδεία και η συνείδηση του ρωμαϊκού res publica (στη «βυζαντινή» του - εκχριστιανισμένη- εκδοχή). Εμείς σήμερα τα ξεχωρίζουμε, χαρακτηρίζοντας το «Βυζάντιο» θεοκρατικό ή μη, περισσότερο ή λιγότερο ελληνικό, δεσποτικό ή φεουδαρχικό κτλ. Ωστόσο οι Ρωμιοί δεν έκαναν αυτούς του διαχωρισμούς. Γι’ αυτούς, Ρωμαίος («Βυζαντινός») ήταν αυτός που είχε γεννηθεί μέσα στο κράτος εκείνο, μίλαγε οπωσδήποτε ελληνικά (από κάποια στιγμή και μετά, μόνο ελληνικά), ήταν Χριστιανός (από κάποια στιγμή και μετά, μόνο Ορθόδοξος) και παρέμενε πιστός στην Κωνσταντινούπολη. Για τον Καλδέλλη αυτή η ταυτότητα ήταν μια συνείδηση που διαπερνούσε κάθετα και οριζόντια την «βυζαντινή» κοινωνία και φρόντιζε το ίδιο το κράτος να φτάνει μέχρι τους ακριτικούς πληθυσμούς (ειδικά σε αυτούς), ώσπου όταν χάθηκε η επικοινωνία αυτή, το κράτος άρχισε να συρρικνώνεται δραματικά.

Κατά συνέπεια, ο αναγνώστης του βιβλίου θα εκπλαγεί με την εμμονή των Ρωμαίων («βυζαντινών») να «κρεμάνε κουδούνια» και παρατσούκλια, ειδικά τοπικιστικά ή εθνοτικά. Για τον συγγραφέα, η μεσαιωνική ρωμαϊκή κοινωνία δεν ήταν πολυπολιτισμική και αυτό φαίνεται μέσα από τις εθνοτικές, θρησκευτικές, τοπικιστικές και γλωσσικές της προκαταλήψεις (σε σημείο ρατσιστικό για τα σημερινά δεδομένα) ή από τον ίδιο τον ρωμαϊκό νόμο. Ένας Ρωμαίος («βυζαντινός») καταλάβαινε τη διαφορά του από έναν Αρμένιο, έναν Γότθο, έναν Σλάβο, έναν Βούλγαρο, έναν Πέρση, έναν Τούρκο, έναν Αλβανό ή έναν Φράγκο, αν και αρχικά μπορεί να αργούσε να ταυτοποιήσει κάποιους από αυτούς (π.χ αρχικά οι Άραβες θεωρήθηκαν Σαρακηνοί και το Ισλάμ μια εκδοχή Μονοφυσιτισμού). Αυτό έγινε πιο έντονο, όταν η αυτοκρατορία επεκτάθηκε τόσο ώστε να συμπεριλάβει πολλούς «ξένους», κάποιοι από τους οποίους ρωμαιοποιήθηκαν είτε αναγκαστικά είτε μέσω μιας πολύ εκλεπτυσμένης πολιτικής με εργαλεία την παιδεία και τη θρησκεία και συνεκτικό παράγοντα τη γλώσσα. Ωστόσο ο προσηλυτισμός και η γλώσσα αργούσαν να άρουν το «βυζαντινό» αλλαζονικό αίσθημα πολιτισμικής ανωτερότητας και ιστορικής συνέχειας. Η ρωμαϊκή («βυζαντινή») ταυτότητα συμπληρωνότανε από την ένδυση και τις καθημερινές συνήθειες. Και ήταν αυτή η ταυτότητα που κράτησε τη «ρωμιοσύνη» ζωντανή μετά το 1204 και τον διαμοιρασμό των εδαφών της αυτοκρατορίας μεταξύ λατινικών φέουδων, μουσουλμανικών χαλιφάτων και ρωμαϊκών Δεσποτάτων.

Η κατάληψη της Κωνσταντινούπολης το 1204 κατά την Δ΄ Σταυροφορία, για τον Καλδέλλη δεν προέκυψε κατά λάθος. Ήταν αποτέλεσμα ενός περιβάλλοντος που είχε προετοιμαστεί πολιτικοθρησκευτικά και σήμανε την έναρξη της δυτικοευρωπαϊκής αποικιοκρατικής πολιτικής. Ήταν όμως και συνέπεια των αλλαγών στη φύση των εσωτερικών δομών της Ανατολικής Ρωμαϊκής Αυτοκρατορίας.
Η Κωνσταντινούπολη αποξενώθηκε από την περιφέρεια της, χάνοντας την ευελιξία και την προσαρμοστικότητα της, όταν επικράτησε η οικογενειοκρατία. Οι γεωγραφικές ανισότητες που προκλήθηκαν έκαναν την Αυτοκρατορία ακόμα πιο ευάλωτη, όταν στο θρόνο ανέβαιναν αδύναμοι ηγέτες. Για τον Καλδέλλη, παραδόξως οι Ρωμαίοι έγιναν ξανά ανθεκτικοί μετά το 1204 ακριβώς επειδή ήταν κατακερματισμένοι και αποκεντρωμένοι. Ωστόσο, εάν το δούμε διαφορετικά μπορούμε να υποθέσουμε με σχετική ασφάλεια ότι η επανάκτηση της Πόλης το 1261 οφείλεται στο ότι η Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία δεν ήταν αυτοκρατορία.

Το βιβλίο αναδεικνύει ότι το «Βυζαντινό» κράτος είχε χαρακτηριστικά που έμοιαζαν περισσότερο στα σύγχρονα εθνικά κράτη παρά στις παραδοσιακές αυτοκρατορίες, ενώ μέσα από τις περιγραφές του, χτίζεται (πιθανόν άθελα του) το προφίλ ενός αρχαιοελληνικού τύπου (αντ)αγωνιστικού πνεύματος ανάμεσα σε θεσμούς, τοπικισμούς, ομάδες ανθρώπων κτλ, που ευνοούσε την ανάπτυξη ενός πιο «φιλελεύθερου» περιβάλλοντος ή οδηγούσε σε αυτοκαταστροφικές επιλογές, όταν ανατρέπονταν οι ισορροπίες δυνάμεων για καιρό. Ο Καλδέλλης σκιαγραφεί το «Βυζάντιο» ως μια ανεξάντλητη δυναμική κατάσταση που στη δίνη της ρουφούσε τους πάντες. Όμως στο κέντρο των αντίρροπων δυνάμεων του, διέθετε έναν εξαιρετικά ανεπτυγμένο συναινετικό ιδεολογικό (πολιτικό-θρησκευτικό) άξονα με στόχο το κοινό καλό (μαζί με τα ιδιωτικά συμφέροντα). Και ο «σωτήρας», ως άλλος Ιησούς, δεν είχε πολλές επιλογές.
Είναι χαρακτηριστικό το παράδειγμα του αυτοκράτορα Ρωμανού Γ’, στον οποίο δόθηκε η επιλογή είτε να χωρίσει τη γυναίκα του και να παντρευτεί μια από τις πριγκίπισσες, ανεβαίνοντα�� στον θρόνο είτε να τυφλωθεί και να εξοριστεί. Παρομοίως, ήταν ανήκουστη η άρνηση του στρατηγού Βελισάριου (που ήταν ύποπτος πραξικοπήματος) να διαδεχτεί τον Ιουστινιανό Α΄, εάν ο αυτοκράτορας πέθαινε από την Πανώλη. Ελλείψει ρητού (π.χ. κληρονομικού) μηχανισμού διαδοχής, η οποία βασιζόταν στη δημοφιλία και στο παρασκήνιο, οι επιτυχίες, ειδικά στον στρατιωτικό τομέα, ανέβαζαν το θερμόμετρο της καχυποψίας του παλατιού για ενδεχόμενο πραξικόπημα με αποτέλεσμα συχνά να λαμβάνονται «προληπτικά» μέτρα κατά οποιουδήποτε υπόπτου (συνήθως φυλάκιση ή εξορία με ή χωρίς τύφλωση) και του κύκλου του (π.χ. σύζυγοι και κόρες κλείνονταν σε μοναστήρια). Από την άλλη, δεν ήταν σπάνια τα αναγκαστικά («αμυντικά») πραξικοπήματα από τα δυνητικά «θύματα» και τον κύκλος τους, ως μοναδική επιλογή για επιβίωση κοινωνική, πολιτική και πολλές φορές βιολογική. Η υπεράσπιση των συμφερόντων δημόσιου, ιδιωτών και ομάδων παράλληλα, με πολλούς παίχτες ταυτόχρονα, ειδικά σε περιπτώσεις ανάγκης, μπορούσε να πάρει (και κάποιες φορές όντως έπαιρνε) σχιζοφρενικές μορφές με καρατομήσεις ικανών στελεχών ή με την ανάκληση από εξορίες και φυλακές ακόμα και πρώην πραξικοπηματιών (εάν ήταν ανάγκη ακόμα και τυφλωμένων) για να αναλάβουν ηγετικούς ρόλους.

Το βιβλίο περιγράφει γλαφυρά το τέλος· τις ανεπάρκειες κάποιων ηγετών και την ανικανότητα ενός συστήματος που είχε «χάσει τον εαυτό του» (ευελιξία, προσαρμοστικότητα, μηχανισμό ανάδειξης των ικανότερων) να ανταποκριθεί ταυτόχρονα σε πολλά και εντελώς διαφορετικά μέτωπα ενός πολυδιασπασμένου και επικίνδυνου κόσμου. Οι κοινωνικές ομάδες γύρω από την εξουσία (στρατός, κλήρος ελίτ, λαός), πέρα της οικογένειας των Παλαιολόγων, είτε μειώθηκαν είτε αποδυναμώθηκαν και έτσι το σύστημα δεν ανανεωνόταν· ως θαύμα έφτασε μέχρι το 1453. Οι πηγές δύναμης, οι επιλογές και οι εναλλακτικές που εξασφάλιζε η κοινωνική κινητικότητα χάθηκαν. Τα ιδιωτικά συμφέροντα αποδεσμεύτηκαν από τα συμφέροντα του κράτους και όταν δεν μετακόμιζαν στις αυλές δύσης και ανατολής, αντιτάσσονταν στον κοινό σκοπό. Το πλεονέκτημα της Ανατολικής Αυτοκρατορίας - ο συνδυασμός πολιτικού πλουραλισμού και συνοχής γύρω από έναν κοινό άξονα - έπαψε να υφίσταται. Το ρωμαϊκό («βυζαντινό») κράτος πτώχευσε, όχι μόνο οικονομικά, αλλά κυρίως πολιτικά. Έγινε προβλέψιμο· προβλέψιμο και εύκολα διαχειρίσιμο.
Ωστόσο, ο Καλδέλλης στέκεται απέναντι στην καθιερωμένη ιστόρηση που ψάχνει να ανιχνεύσει τα βαθύτερα αίτια της «βυζαντινής παρακμής» αποκλειστικά στην ηθική και στην κοινωνία εκείνου του κράτους. Πρακτικά και σχεδόν κυνικά, αποδίδει το μεγαλύτερο μερίδιο της ευθύνης της πτώσης σε αυτούς που τους ανήκει· δηλαδή στους «θύτες» και όχι στο «θύμα».

Τι προσφέρει ο Καλδέλλης με αυτό το ογκώδες βιβλίο; Μια νέα προσέγγιση και κατανόηση της μεσαιωνικής ρωμαϊκής κοινωνίας, του κράτους και της ιστορίας τους. Αντιμετωπίζει επιστημονικά, αναλυτικά και πρακτικά παρωχημένες ιδέες, ιδεοληψίες και εικασίες, αναφέροντας μας και αξιολογώντας τις πηγές. Μας παρέχει γεγονότα και λεπτομέρειες που είτε έχουν διαφύγει της προσοχής μας είτε θα πρέπει να επανεξετάσουμε. Εντέλει μας ορίζει ρητά την εθνική, πολιτική και ιδεολογική φύση των Ρωμιών.
Το The New Roman Empire: A History of Byzantium προσφέρει με κατανοητό, ευανάγνωστο και απολαυστικό τρόπο ό,τι θα πρέπει να γνωρίζει ο σημερινός αναγνώστης για την Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία και τις γύρω από αυτό εθνοτικές, θρησκευτικές και πολιτικές οντότητες που τότε ξεκινούσαν να προσδιορίζονται. Παρότι πολυσέλιδο, το βιβλίο είναι εξαιρετικά οργανωμένο, ώστε να ανατρέχει κάποιος εύκολα σε περιόδους, πρόσωπα ή θέματα. Ίσως πρόκειται για το βιβλίο αναφοράς των επόμενων δεκαετιών όσο αφορά στην ιστορία της Ρωμανίας. Αλλά αυτό μέλλει να το πουν οι ιστορικοί και οι αναγνώστες του μέλλοντος. Εύχομαι ειλικρινά να μεταφραστεί κάποια στιγμή και στα ελληνικά.

[Andres Felipe Contreras Buitrago · Rating 4 out of 5]

El libro, es el libro más completo del imperio bizantino, el más actualizado, el que tiene varias tesis e ideas novedosas. Como lo dice en la introducción el centro de atención será lo político, militar y religioso,y es por eso último que no le doy 5 estrellas, cuando toca esos temas, para mí, es algo aburrido, también hay algunas partes algo pesadas de leer, así que es mejor leer y complementar este libro. Recomendado.

El primer capítulo empieza el 11 de mayo del 330 en la que bizancio se convirtió en Constantinopla y se erigió una estatua hacia este emperador, se construyó también un foro hacia este, en este primer momento Era una ciudad romana y no una capital cristiana, pero sí se sentaron las bases de lo que sería la iglesia de Santa Sofía, se construyó un hipódromo el cual era un lugar de encuentro y discusiones.

Muchas personas veían en Constantinopla una nueva Roma de oriente e inclusive algunos la llamaban Roma como tal, el nuevo emperador hizo todo lo posible para borrar el pasado de su rival. la ciudad se enfrentaba a un imperio fragmentado entre rivalidades y presiones extranjeras por parte de los bárbaros y los persas partos, con ellos se tenía la intención de que Constantinopla fuera un lugar para hacer frente a los enemigos de Oriente y controlar mejor el estrecho del bósforo, así Constantinopla era un lugar para mantener unida Europa y Asia.

La ciudad creció mucho en población puesto que Constantino ya había demarcado una ciudad mucho más grande la cual tenía un mejor aprovisionamiento de pan gracias a los cereales exportados desde Egipto los cuales dejaron de suministrar este cereal a Roma para llevarlo a la nueva capital, Constantino también incendió la llegada de migrantes como la de senadores romanos, para llevar a cabo todas estas horas fue necesario usar impuestos, el tesoro apropiado de su rival y principalmente los tesoros de los templos paganos, la nueva capital está habitada en su mayoría por griegos.

Se llevaron a cabo medidas económicas como un nuevo impuesto más Sensato basado en el censo con lo cual había una carga fiscal más equitativa, no hay que dejar de lado que el mayor terrateniente en este lugar era el emperador luego le seguían los senadores Y por último estaban los concejales de la ciudad. La granja familiar era lo más común y estos vivían de una gran prosperidad entre los siglos IV y V, había una población que estaba compuesta por 15% de esclavos, las mujeres a su vez no podían ocupar cargos políticos aunque muchos participaron en eventos públicos pese a lo mal visto que era ellos ya que estas debían era permanecer en el hogar.

Las personas conocían muy bien la burocracia del imperio al punto de que usaban las leyes a su favor, en el ámbito económico tenemos la emisión de una moneda de oro, la economía romana está basada en el sólidus, habían impuestos para la clase urbana. el estado supuestamente debe actuar siempre con los intereses del pueblo por ello el emperador debía proteger a sus súbditos con ellos siempre existió la imagen de un emperador que protegía a los pobres de los ricos, ello da la imagen de una inseguridad del emperador el cual podía ser de puesto según los intereses populares, por ello los emperadores estaban en constante evaluación y necesitaban mostrarse como justos.

El ejército era el hacedor de Reyes, era muy complejo el mantenimiento de todo un ejército Pero al final quedó un buen ejército en Constantinopla. en el ámbito religioso tenemos que el cristianismo era mucho más urbano y se encontraba en un primer momento en Egipto, Siria y Palestina, la conversión de Constantino al cristianismo hizo que mucha más gente se convirtiera debido a los favores que es emperador daba, el cristianismo no era algo que quería reducirse a una mera religión sino que quería crear una nación y un sistema político por ello los cristianos se vean más como una organización política, lo que se había demostrado décadas antes era el fracaso de la persecución romana hacia los cristianos que luego con el edicto de Milán se dio libertad religiosa Aunque Posteriormente se restringen ciertas prácticas paganas, el cristianismo fue importante para reforzar la lealtad al imperio.

El cristianismo fue importante Gracias a su mensaje de salvación personal y su rito de iniciación con el bautismo fomentaba Así mismo la solidaridad y el liderazgo se llevaba a cabo por el clero, no hay que olvidar que para esta época habían diferentes tipos de cristianismo con ellos se crean rivalidades dentro de la propia comunidad cristiana pero esta supo muy bien expandirse gracias al uso de imágenes y logos, los cristianos serán muy propensos a denunciar cualquier cosa mala o falsa, con ello existía la imagen de un grupo que era los verdaderos cristianos y los otros no lo calentó muchos debates teológicos.

En la segunda parte tenemos a un Constantino que derrotó a todos sus rivales y se convierte al cristianismo Aunque siempre se quería ver como un emperador defensor de la paz y la libertad y usó a diferentes intelectuales para crear una biografía según sus intereses la verdad es que Muchas de sus acciones son muy cuestionables y más desde una visión cristiana, Lo importante es que creo una Nueva Dinastía. Pese a lo abstracto de lo que decía Constantino de la religión alentó diferentes debates como el que se pudo ver en el Concilio de Nicea en que se intentaron resolver disputas en donde se lleva a cabo la primera expulsión dentro del cristianismo en este caso fueron los arrianos.

Ahora la figura del emperador se vuelve una que puede resolver problemas teológicos pues al no tener mucho conocimiento religioso, los conflictos de la iglesia se vuelven políticos pero esta institución se vuelve cada vez más rica Gracias a las donaciones y a la filantropía con lo que los obispos sólo se reducen a la autoridad moral de ciertos asuntos para esta época todavía no había mucha influencia cristiana en las leyes romanas.

En los últimos años Constantino aseguró de cierta manera su sucesión al poder además de asegurar las fronteras en el danubio con lo que hubo un periodo de 30 años de paz con el pueblo godo, Aunque estaba listo para llevar a cabo un ataque contra el Imperio persazania este Lamentablemente murió y con ellos se volvió a dividir el Imperio, el nuevo emperador constancio fue muy defensivo en la campaña contra los persas los cuales luego se centrarán en asuntos de Asia central lo que resultó en un respiro para el emperador romano.

Todavía se llevan a cabo concilios y debates dentro de la religión cristiana en la que nuevamente el emperador encabeza la iglesia, el paganismo estaba sufriendo un duro retroceso los cuales debían adaptarse al cristianismo con ello empiezan las prácticas prohibitivas paganas y la confiscación de tierras y tesoros de templos paganos. El helenismo sufre un tipo de restauración por parte de juliano, incluso muchos cristianos sentían miedo de que varias personas se sintieran atraídas por esta cultura griega.

Juliano llevó a cabo una guerra contra los persas lo cual llevó a que si llegara a la capital de estos Aunque Lamentablemente murió en Guerra y su sucesor debió firmar un acuerdo humillante en la que Roma debía sacar su ejército de Mesopotamia, le sigue joviano el cual no dura mucho en el poder.

En el Imperio Oriental estaría dominado por Valente, el cual debió hacer frente a varias rebeliones pero que siempre apoyó a Constantinopla como la construcción de un acueducto y campañas contra la corrupción, este logró Victoria sobre los godos y logró reconquistar Armenia, Durante los años de gobernanza de este emperador se perseguía cualquier cosa relacionada con la magia, dentro de su imperio llegaron refugiados godos que huían del poder de los hunos, esto hizo que se contrataran a estos nuevos llegados para defender al imperio puesto que era mucho más barato, Aunque el emperador sufriría una gran derrota a manos de los bárbaros en los balcanes.

El nuevo emperador sería teodosio, debe enfrentar una rebelión interna a manos de los godos lo que llevó a la decisión de este emperador de masacrarlos y a otros mandarlos lejos de las fronteras del imperio como en Egipto Aunque allí También causaron problemas, se llevó a cabo el Concilio de Constantinopla en el que se imponía de cierta manera la iglesia occidental en Oriente, a los godos se les dieron tierras pero siempre eran vistos como no romanos, también se llevó a cabo la división de Armenia entre los dos imperios y con ello teodosio se centró en controlar Roma con lo que se hizo con todo el Imperio Aunque debió enfrentar rebeliones en Antioquia y en Constantinopla, a causa de la ausencia del emperador. Este lleva a cabo mejoras en Constantinopla como nuevo foro y monumentos con los que quería eclipsar a Constantino.

Como se había mencionado los sacrificios se encontraban en declive Aunque todavía la mitad del imperio era pagano y el cristianismo se reducía más a las ciudades, pero si el aumento de poder del cristianismo este no cambió en nada las estructuras de la sociedad romana, lo que se hizo fue El reemplazo de la religión pagana dentro de los emperadores al cristianismo, muchas personas Incluso se tomaban muy al pie de la letra las enseñanzas de Jesús lo que surgió fue un movimiento de Ermitaños que vagaban por el desierto, Gracias también a la filantropía se construyeron los primeros hospitales y el abandono de la riqueza.

La tercera parte empieza con el peligro de los unos en Rumanía, muchos gobernantes después de teodosio, eran débiles y manejados por eunucos, ellos debían hacerle frente a la amenaza que representaba Alárico, el cual logró destruir gran parte de Grecia, con lo que los bizantinos debieron ceder a las demandas de los godos. con los años llegaría al poder Teodosio II, su mayor aporte hacia la nueva capital de Roma fueron las murallas de Constantinopla y la construcción de otras murallas para proteger a la ciudad de Los Invasores, empieza un aumento de la población dentro de Constantinopla con lo que se crean nuevos Barrios. Roma por su parte se encontraba cada vez más debilitada y era más dependiente a la ayuda militar de Oriente.

Existieron movimientos radicales cristianos los cuales violentaron cualquier cosa que era vista como pagar el mayor ejemplo de Esto fue la muerte de hipatia de Alejandría. El judaísmo por su parte se convirtió en una identidad separada del cristianismo aunque eran vistos como ciudadanos de segunda clase. El cristianismo se encargó de construir el concepto de paganismo, fue en Grecia donde más se mantuvo las prácticas paganas, el cristianismo por ejemplo también dominó en las artes clásicas Cómo se vio en la fundación de la Universidad de Constantinopla en 425.

Muchos ritos paganos fueron reemplazados por el cristianismo así también como dioses paganos griegos como Atenea se reemplazaron por la Virgen María. Los obispos se encargaban de administrar instituciones aunque tampoco tenían un gran poder como se creía, puesto que el estado Romano siguió funcionando como siempre en la que no hubo influencia cristiana.

Una práctica para ganar que se siguió practicando durante toda la existencia del imperio bizantino fue la del teatro y las carreras en el hipódromo donde existían equipos verdes y Azules, la gente incluso conocía más sobre las carreras y los competidores que sobre la misma Biblia, el apoyo del emperador a estas prácticas pese a ser paganas era causa de que eran muy populares y ayudaban a entretener a las personas la razón más importante de ello es que estos juegos sirvieron para mostrar lealtad al emperador desde el público.

En el Imperio Romano de occidente se estaban llevando a cabo una serie de invasiones bárbaras como se pudo haber visto en la de los vándalos los cuales llegaron a conquistar el norte de África y consiguieron generar temores en el mar Mediterráneo lo que consiguió que Constantinopla construyera diques, Posteriormente se lograría la paz con estos pero el nuevo terror sería Atila.

Este último emperador nómada quería conseguir riquezas y no acabar con los imperios romanos, se llevaron a cabo una serie de ataque por parte de los hunos en los balcanes los cuales buscaban más tributo para este imperio, esto llevó a la creación de un nuevo ejército bizantino para hacer frente a los hunos, Atila llegó al punto que en 446 llegó a avanzar hacia Constantinopla la cual se encontraba débil a causa de un terremoto lo que llevó a que se le concediera un gran tributo Atila, obviamente resultó en una gran carga económica para el Imperio bizantino.

La iglesia también se encontraba en una guerra fría entre Alejandría y otros obispos orientales, se llevó a cabo el gran Concilio de calcedonia, posterior a ese se llevaron a cabo rebeliones religiosas en Alejandría y Jerusalén. El nuevo emperador León, en su primera mitad de reinado fue relativamente pacífica logró derrotar a los ejércitos que quedaron de Atila en el danubio, Aunque su mayor fracaso fue el de destruir las flotas vándalas, lo que llevó a León a matar a unos de sus cercanos el cual gozaba con gran apoyo popular.

Posterior a León gobernó Zenón, el cual pese a su popularidad gobernó bien y llegó a derrotar a muchos de sus enemigos, por ejemplo la guerra civil con basilisco, el cual emperador por un breve momento no fue muy costoso. mantuvo buenas relaciones con el nuevo emperador Romano bárbaro Odoacro, para mucho es la caída del Imperio Romano de occidente fue Más bien una transformación Aunque algunos sí lo veían efectivamente como una caída, la razón del Por qué bizancio no ayudó a occidente fue el hecho de que no podía haber hecho mucho el emperador bizantino. Zenón también debió enfrentar una rebelión pagana en Illus, posterior a esto surgiría una contra rebelión por parte de cristianos en Alejandría.

Una peculiaridad del Imperio Romano de oriente es que técnicamente cualquiera podía ser emperador mientras tuviera el debido apoyo y estuvieran en el momento adecuado, Esto fue lo que pasó con el siguiente emperador Anastasio, el cual no estaba subordinado a ninguna corte o eunuco. Este llevó a cabo una purga luego de una rebelión isauria. Emprendió una reforma económica monetaria y fiscal, el Imperio ya no debía pagarle dinero a los bárbaros con lo que hubo una gran recaudación de impuestos que sumado un buen clima ayudó a una buena agricultura, en esta misma línea del estado se volvió más fuerte para recaudar impuestos y con la racionalización de la economía se lograron obtener excedentes para construir murallas, como ejemplo tenemos la Gran Muralla de Tracia.

Se llevaron a cabo la reconstrucciones de las ciudades acabadas por los pueblos bárbaros en las que se destruyeron muchos templos paganos a medida que se construían las nuevas ciudades lo que llevó también al reemplazo de los festivales paganos a ferias comerciales y así mismo a qué monumentos paganos se han reemplazados por iglesias cristianas y nuevos hospitales. En las ciudades existieron nuevos centros de Liderazgo muchos concejales de la ciudad fueron al senado. por mucho tiempo los persas estuvieron centrados en pueblos de Asia central como los unos blancos Aunque luego iniciaría una guerra entre el 502 y el 504, en la que se tuvo que llevar a cabo una paz a cambio de mucho oro bizantino o lo que se llevó a cabo la fortaleza construcción de fortalezas en pueblos cercanos a la frontera persa.

En esta época también se puede dar cuenta el fanatismo que había entre los equipos verdes y azules que llevaba muchos casos de violencias entre ambos. En el ámbito religioso se lleva a cabo todo en movimiento religioso en contra del Concilio de Calcedonia. Se apoyaron nuevas lenguas como el armenio y el gorgiano a causa de la demanda de escrituras religiosas. En el 514 se llevó a cabo una rebelión liderada por un soldado de origen godo el cual contó con gran apoyo del campesinado y exigía el regreso de obispos exiliados luego de calcedonia con lo que se establecía la primera revuelta por una causa teológica Aunque posteriormente sería derrotada.

Al concluir en la tercera parte surge el cuestionamiento del porqué el Imperio Romano de oriente sobrevivió y no el de Occidente. Lo primero que menciona el autor es que durante el corrían estos acontecimientos en el Imperio bizantino tenía un periodo próspero y Pacífico. El problema del Imperio Romano fue que los bárbaros tenían gran poder dentro del ejército y contaban con muchas tierras, contrario a lo que pasaba, en Oriente los balcanes fueron los únicos afectados por los bárbaros y a estos les será difícil cruzar hasta las provincias más ricas de Oriente, la segunda razón es que en ese mismo instante Persia no era hostil hacia los bizantinos por lo que muchos de los recursos se pudieron trasladar hacia otros lugares. La tercera razón es que en el Imperio bizantino nunca hubo generales bárbaros y nunca los tratan como iguales. Los nuevos reinos que surgieron de la caída del Imperio Romano respetaron mucho a Constantinopla Y estos últimos ejercían poder blando hacia estos reinos, Finalmente nos encontramos con las primeras incursiones árabes aunque gracias a un acuerdo por un siglo este problema sería solucionado.

Justino se convierte en el nuevo emperador del imperio bizantino el cual comenzó sus primeros años al perseguir obispos disidentes así como hacer un mayor acercamiento hacia el papa, quién estuvo de mucho detrás de sus grandes acciones sería el próximo gran emperador Justiniano, el cual quería casarse con una mujer que era ex trabajadora sexual lo que mostraba su deseo de superar cualquier obstáculo, este sería el próximo emperador y con ello la sucesión era asegurada, durante la década del 520 se llevó a cabo la construcción de la iglesia de los santos sergio's, ya en el 527 sería Coronado Justiniano.


Reseña completa:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K...

[Σταμάτης Καρασαββίδης]

CANT WAIT TO READ THIS <3 <3 <3
Finally he was allowed to release it with the title "roman" and not the orientalist and racist 'byzantine"

[Daniel Greear · Rating 4 out of 5]

“And therefore I have sailed the seas and come
To the holy city of Byzantium.”
-W.B Yeats

The New Roman Empire: A History of Byzantium by Anthony Kaldellis
 
Finally, after starting this three months ago I have finished the 918 pages of text and I'm feeling accomplished about doing so. The only thing is, after reading a book for so long and one that covers such a heavy subject and long period of history, I feel a bit empty. I am always sad when good books end, especially cradle to grave biographies.  This was similar to a biography, as it took the reader through the entirety of the East Roman Empire.  My poor book, despite being a hardback, is worn and torn.  The edges of the binding are frayed, the pages are wrinkled, and ink from underlining so much of the book is smeared and uneven in many places. This is a book that was shown a lot of love by me.
 
I have long been fascinated by Roman history, but specifically I find East Roman History more interesting for some reason.  I think this may be because it's understudied and misunderstood.  I find it interesting that the eastern part of the empire continued on for a thousand years after the western part "fell".  I find it equally interesting that the citizens of the Eastern Roman Empire never considered themselves Greeks or Byzantines (a word invented later on) but simply Roman.  I find it interesting and sad that there are very few traces of the empire left, as the Turks certainly have and continue to wipe out remnants of Christianity and the west in Turkey.

The citizens of Romanía spoke Greek, yes, and had their own version of Christianity, sure, but they were never anything but Roman.  Kaldellis' book sets out to correct this error in our understanding, as many have done in recent scholarship, and I do feel that the tide is turning in the war of words.
 
Kaldellis does an excellent job in giving the reader the full picture, from the beginning to the end.  From Emperor Constantine's founding of Constantinople in the 300s AD to the fall of the city in 1453, some 1100 years later, the reader is taken on a rollercoaster ride of events.  The list of emperors, civil wars, church disagreements, wars, etc. is a bit daunting to keep up with.  There are so many Leos, Ioannes, and Constantines that it will make your head spin. This book truly is an exhaustive and impressive work of history.  Kaldellis' descriptions of battles, wars, and the world writ large is very good. Another purpose of this book is to dispel the use of the word Byzantine, which isn't used at all. At the end, the reader is shown the connection between the Eastern Roman Empire and the New World, as Columbus was influenced by Greek scholars who had emigrated from the floundering empire. The maps, photos, and timeline of emperors was also super helpful.
 
The most difficult parts of this book for me to get through were the sections on religion.  I felt utterly lost and also felt that my mind was wandering in these sections.  They were confusing, bland, and pedantic, but that may be the author’s point. I also found that the ending was too rushed. I wanted to learn more about the final siege of Constantinople, the end of the empire, and what happened afterwards to the Romans. Both of these issues are minor to the overall composition of this book which is great.
 
In summary, I enjoyed this book and learned a lot.  It will be kept on my shelf a quick reference in the future. It is a truly a book for only serious readers of history like me. It’s not for the faint of hear or for a casual reader.

4/5 stars with a lean more towards five.

[Stijn De Smet · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you ever felt curious about Byzantium and wanted to learn more about it's survival from start to finish you need to look no further. It's impressive how Anthony Kaldellis manages to fit a millenium worth of history in one book without losing any meaningful substance. The New Roman Empire has a surprising amount of detail and focuses on diverse subjects. The author will sometimes focus on the lives of it's rulers, then jump to theological discussions, tax policies, wars and more without losing the narrative. A very expertly written book, superbly sourced and a fulfilling read for anyone with an urge to find out in detail about what happened to the romans after the western part fell.

A fair warning though, you might start tearing up when the book reaches the 7th century, 11th century, 1204 and finally 1453.

[Aaron Kleinheksel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Kaldellis' new history of the "Byzantine" East Roman (really just Roman) Empire is a magisterial effort. It has to be the best current 1-volume treatment of the rather forgotten subject, taking into account the most recent archeological and historical scholarship.

I say this in spite of a couple issues I had with it, because in the larger context of over a millennium of history, they are small. First, despite his obvious good-faith efforts to be an unbiased professional historian throughout this book, I think Kaldellis' personal preferences lie toward classical studies and the religion and philosophy of the pagan ancients (esp. Greek) over what he sees as the modern innovation and intrusion of the Jewish religious sect of Christianity into history. This comes out moreso early in the book when he is a bit unfair to Christianity, and at times I feel is mistaken in his understanding of Christian theology. I don't feel this is intentional. I think Kaldellis is just a man who has grown up outside the Christian Church and without Christian doctrine and practice as a primary concern or interest of study. Besides, I would be the 1st to agree that we in the West are heavily indebted to Greek philosophy and Greco-Roman learning and, particularly, law. It is why the subject of the Empire still captures the interest and imagination of so many of us. Second, I wish he had spent more time on the events and details surrounding the final siege and conquest of Constantinople itself. It is (as he recounts) one of the epochal events of world history, yet this queen volume of Roman Imperial history grants it just a couple of pages. Finally, while I fully understand Kaldellis' decision to use the Greek names for people, places, titles, etc. (ex. Ioannes vs. John), after a while it became... a bit much. I wish instead he would have deferred to the book's target audience (wester English speakers, non-academics) and for the sake of continuity w/ other texts used the traditional spellings. The Greek spellings / pronunciations would have been appropriate perhaps for the first introduction of each personage and/or as part of an appendix chart.

Overall, this book is fantastic and deserves to be on the shelf of every student of Roman history. For a longer treatment, and one that goes into a bit more detail on several interesting topics, I still highly recommend John Julius' Norwich's 3 volume history of Byzantium, even though it's getting a bit long-in-the-tooth. Another great resource is Robin Pierson's History of Byzantium podcast at https://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/.

[Matthew Brennan · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read it from cover to cover. 1100 pages of dynastic infighting, religious bickering, eunuchs scheming, the empire expanding and contracting and expanding and contracting and then collapsing and recovering and then collapsing again. There is no story more dramatic, than that of the City, from its remaking by Constantine to its capture by the Ottomans. If you like Roman history—because there is no such thing as “Byzantium” or a “Byzantine”— then this book is for you.

[Rastislav Krutak · Rating 5 out of 5]

6/5

[Ron Nurmi · Rating 5 out of 5]

This does a fine job of looking at the 1100 years of history of New Rome or the Byzantium period.
Anthony Kaldellis does a great job of looking at how the religion of New Rome influenced the people and area. If you are familiar with the period and history it will be helpful. He discusses the problems of writing history with few or biased sources.

This was not the easiest book to read but will worth the effort.

[Jeffrey · Rating 5 out of 5]

It was in my second year in Istanbul I learned the Greek-speaking people of Türkiye called themselves Rum. As there were so many unfamiliar words and sounds in my life at that time (I understood just a few words of Turkish) I didn’t stop and consider what it meant until I learned the Seljuks Turks called themselves the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum. Why would Turks call themselves Roman? It was at this moment I realized that Anatolia was Rome that I began to understand Rome was something quite different from the Rome I’d been raised on.
My journey through the New Roman Empire really starts here, but two distinct thoughts brought me closer to a vision of New Rome. I stood in the yard of the Imrahor Mosque—once known as that great library, the Studion, and realized the façade was clearly more old Roman than New; the continuum between the architecture of Pagan and Christian Rome could clearly be seen. The other moment was when I looked at the stunning mosaics in Saint Maria in Testaverde some years later. I knew about Ravenna but had never been there, and the religious emersion I felt in the glorious colors and ordering of the tesserae was as inspirational as the Sistine Chapel. I knew I had to put more time into the later Roman Empire.
I have done this in two ways. First of all, I began listening to Robin Pierson’s History of Byzantium podcast when I went out for my daily walk. It was an excellent source of information but his relationship to Anthony Kaldellis in time became apparent. It was then that I decided I should head over to Kaldellis’ work and read what he has to say in more detail.
If I was a Byzantine scholar, I would enjoy nothing more than punching holes in Kaldellis’ scholarship. His writing is so fluid and self-assured—he has “the voice” that a novelist or podcaster would seek to project, warm and confident. I might add that Steven Runciman’s writing about the New Romans is also stylish if dated. Kaldellis is quite contemporary and I very much enjoyed that Kaldellis states he’s opposing the general consensus that’s been established, more often than not attacking the received wisdom with plenty of footnotes.
I’m no scholar so I can’t tell you when and when his revisionist scholarship should be opposed. Time takes care of every scholar. Yesterday I read a few pages of John Ruskin’s writing on Venice. He was once very popular and respected, but out of all the writers and readers I know, I believe I’m the only one who’s read anything by him.
What stands out for me about Kaldellis’ book is there’s about four thousand pages of reading and a thousand for the appendices and notes; it took me a good deal of time to cover all this ground, but at least Kaldellis is conversational; he has no desire to make his subject any less accessible to the modern reader than it already is. The second point is the book is really his magnum opus. He has written other things of the New Roman Empire, but this is his most complete history.
Of course, no one but a scholar can recall all the emperors. And I’m not so certain John Kantakouzenos was the worse of Christian Rome’s many emperors—things just weren’t in very good shape anyway. But it’s just great to find a modern take on a subject that’s often overlooked. The Eastern Roman Empire wasn’t just a rump state of the older Roman Empire. It was an entity that grew and changed—and eventually declined—after over a thousand years of Constantinople. In my book that’s a pretty good run. There’s almost too much to bear about schismatics, arcane debates about the nature of the trinity, and the defenestration (not literally) of one patriarch after another. But it didn’t bother me because I enjoyed the sense that while the empire was in turmoil much of the time, it survived—if you go from the occupation of Pergamon in 129 B.C.E. to the fall of Constantinople in 1453 C.E., over 1500 years had passed. Even if you want to make the date of the empire 330 C.E., when Constantine made Constantinople the capitol, over 1100 years is impressive. In truth my biggest gripe with this book is Kaldellis doesn’t provide an appendix with any of the creative writing of New Rome, and I’ve often wondered what the New Romans created besides the fork. But the book was long enough. Perhaps he could grace us with a look at the New Romans greatest literary hits some other time.

[Porphyroistoriografos · Rating 1 out of 5]

This will be a very controversial review and rating to make but Kaldellis i feel indulged his most unscholarly tendencies with this book that will, even if obviously not intended to be a highly academic work, still reach many more readers compared to his other works much more worthy of that readership.

Kaldellis sets out to "correct" the historic wrongs that Western historiography inflicted upon the Byzantine history. However, he does that in a way that often appears to be extremely one-sided in his turn, frequently using anachronistic terms such as "racism" and "colonialism" to describe Western and only Western injustices towards Byzantium.

Aggressive wars of conquest and atrocities committed by the Romans often feel like they are glossed over, the best example of it being Justinian's Italian wars, which completely devastated the peninsula and where there were more than few instances of "Greeks" being seen as a foreign, unwanted and devastating intruder by the locals, which Kaldellis somehow almost completely ignores, even using a sordid quip of "restoring Romanness" to describe the venture. The pattern of unrelenting accusations towards Latins of being uniquely intolerant, racist, colonising invaders and the comparably lenient treatment of everyone else is unmistakable and can sadly in my opinion only be ascribed to modern political and academic trends, where casting "Westerner" actions in an uniquely evil light is accepted or even glorified, while nationalistic and lenient narratives of other entities are seen as rightful and uncontroversial, instead of an emotionally burdened over-correction and failure to see the mistakes of the past as inherently such, instead of based on who had the privilege of committing them. I think it is irresponsible to publish an introductory book for audience which often lacks other perspectives where this view is so uncritically pushed.

Romans were peoples like all the others, failible as well as admirable, imbued with their own very healthy ego and feelings of superiority and supremacy based on their own history and the sense of this is markedly muted in this book compared to the bitter language used to constantly attack the Latins with. Disproportionate sections of book are dedicated to the topic, spilling over into diatribes of Latin rule of former Byzantine territories, while underrated and undertalked periods of the Byzantine history, like the 8th and 9th centuries, are reduced to a many times rehashed basic narratives covering the events in court and little else in one of most transformative and institutionally interesting periods of Byzantine history.

I would also note that the book consists many event descriptions and explanations which were often provided without any context necessary to arrive at valid understanding of them. This is a smaller fault as attempting to fit the entirety of Byzantine history will make these virtually inevitable, but the book in here my more subjective opinion would have still been better served with some more "why's" and "how's" especially today when raw information is more accessible than ever.

Kaldellis is one of, if not my favourite Byzantine scholar and i rate all his other books i read highly, where he tempers his lively spirit with academic rigour and a degree of professionalism you wouldn't believe is exhibited if this book is your only impression of his work. This is him, to be frank, shooting the shit as at a jolly podcast conversation much more than him attempting to put his best foot forward. But this book is a huge disservice to him and his readers, even if objectively not deserving of one star, i give it that as i am highly concerned that not a single other review here pointed out the things i did here. This book is much closer to the tone and quality of rightfully considered outdated household narratives such as Norwich than it should be given how much the field has advanced since then.

[Rey · Rating 5 out of 5]

The New Roman Empire: A History of Byzantium

This book is a masterpiece, it doesn't get much better. I chose to read this book based on the one and only review at the time. That five star review was spot on, thank you for that recommendation.

I let this book sit for a full year, as I wanted to take my time with it and savor every page.

In the interim, I read both Peter the Great and Catherine the Great by Robert Massie, both of which were outstanding.

I read four of Paul Rahe's series on the history of the Sparta, Attic, Persian and Peloponnesian wars. Paul Rahe is a genius, his writing is superb, I can highly recommend that series, which now totals six books.

That led me to Amanda Podany's, Weavers, Scribes and Kings, which is one of the finest books I have ever read. It doesn't get much better for Ancient Near Eastern and Mesopotamian history. She takes the reader from the time of Uruk around 3,500 BC, to Alexander the Great, utilizing for the most part cuneiform on clay tablets.

I moved on from that to Assyria by Eckart Frahm, and capped the time period with 1177 BC by Eric Cline.
That three book combo worked well together if anyone is wondering, the first two were my favorites of the three, but Eric Cline adds some additional historical substance that helped immensely.

I read a couple of others and then moved on to this masterpiece, as I wanted to get all of that off my plate, and I am glad I did.

One of my only regrets with this book is that it is now complete. It is like knowing a vacation will end before leaving and really wishing you had the time to go again.

I have books piled up by Peter Sarris, Herrin, Dan Jones, Marc Morris, Holland, Goldsworthy etc, yet devoted nearly three months with this book, slow but surely, living life and delving back in at the most opportune times.

The book ends with a flourish, it does not bog down in the final pages, it only deepens with suspense and intrigue, I made over 2,000 highlights and multiple notes. What a wonderful journey, I could not be happier than to give this a five star review.

I will leave it to others to dive deeper into its contents, as there is so much history to review, and others do that better than myself. Needless to say you cannot go wrong with this book.

There was a story to be told with each chapter, a means to better understand the big picture as you move through the decades and centuries.
The stories on religion are fascinating and a much needed element, I did not find them pro or con to either side of the coin, just the facts. This book will squeeze your brain cells at times, all the more enjoyable in the end, as that it comes full circle.

It does include a number of maps, excellent illustrations, a great index and a list of Emperors of the Romans in the East, which I used a lot. You won't be lacking for resources, with Wikipedia and others research tools being only a click away. The Kindle app helped immensely for the pronunciation of difficult names and locations, and I used the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy more than I ever anticipated.

I did buy four additional books regarding the Byzantine Empire or its aftermath while reading The New Roman Empire: A History of Byzantium by Anthony Kaldellis, I became a Byzantium junky

1. Justinian by Peter Sarris

2. 1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West by Roger Crowley

3. The Lost World of Byzantium by Jonathan Harris

4. Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire by Judith Herrin

This was not my first book on the time period, only the finest.

I will be reading more from Anthony's collection of books, he is an outstanding writer. I am already looking for sales to pop up, just not sure that's going to happen, otherwise I might be digging deeper into the pocket.

Thank you so much for this excellent lesson on the new Roman Empire

[Ryan Denson · Rating 5 out of 5]

"The history of the New Roman Empire is one of the most fascinating tales in human history. It is at times Biblical, taking its cue from scriptural archetypes, and at times heroic, drawing on Homer and the classics. It is replete with saints and sinners."

"Though they could never achieve our society’s levels of inequality because the basis of their wealth remained land or gold, which were finite, unlike our 'fiscal instruments' that conjure digital riches out of the ether."

This is a pretty easy book to describe: it's a near thousand-page narrative history of the Byzantine empire's thousand-year existence from the fourth-century foundation of Constantinople to the fall of Constantinople in 1453. The more difficult question, and one that other people have pondered: who is the intended readership?. The broad scope inherently means that it lacks enough detail to satisfy Byzantinists themselves. Accordingly, it would be easy to raise the critique about any single page or specific event that things were actually more complicated than what is written here, and more evidence/interpretations should be discussed. At the same time, it has too many details from the perspective of a member of the general public, who would be easily overwhelmed by the tangle of unfamiliar geography, transliterated Greek terms, and rapid-fire flurry of names. That combined with its length makes too intimidating for most people to read. Perhaps its best suited for an amateur historian, who would be interested in exploring a period/culture that they themselves have not previously explored.

One of the stand out elements to this though is the authorial voice, through which Kaldellis likes to comment on more ironic bits of Byzantine history, the amusing nature of some imperial decree/action, or even occasional comparisons with the horrors of modern capitalism. This is an intentionally subjective element that works well injects some life into the mass of details. Much of that authorial voice interceding in the narrative, though, is also premised upon defending his notion of calling the Byzantines the "east Romans," and throwing in his disagreements with other scholars about interpreting certain aspects of Byzantine history. But, even when he snarkily disagrees with ideas that I and others have said about Procopius, I still find it a nice touch that you don't often see in such public-facing works of history. That is at least step away from the conventional idea that history must always be dry and sound objective, a tradition based on the archaic twentieth-century (and earlier) delusion that there is such a thing as objective knowledge to begin with.

[Zack Whitley · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a massive volume, which goes into a surprising amount of detail considering that it covers 1,000 years of history. Kaldellis mostly convinced me that the Byzantines were in fact Romans or new Romans. He seems to admire Romania, as he calls it, and indeed, I came to feel the same way. At times, the individuals and level of detail in this book takes away from the big picture, but Kaldellis usually steps back to put things into perspective; he tells us what sources there are and when there are no sources and we're guessing.

Mostly this is a story of the disintegration of the Roman Empire, which in the east took a thousand years to unwind. First to go was the whole west, lost to various Germanic tribes, which Kaldellis doesn't really discuss. (In these years there are lots of religious disputes, which Kaldellis does a good job of explaining: factionalism had set in over the tiniest of issues that no one really cared about. The important thing was that your group win the argument.) Then it's the turn of North Africa, Egypt, and the middle east to be conquered in the poorly understood Muslim conquests in the seventh century (following the great World War between Rome and Persia), which also gets surprisingly little notice although this is probably due to the lack of sources. Kaldellis does a good job of explaining how the war between Persia and Rome set the stage for the Arab expansion, but the actual expansion seems opaque. Things stabilized for a while until the Turks and Mongols show up. The Turkish expansion, at least in Kaldellis's telling, was greatly aided by "Latin" or "Frankish" attacks on Constantinople and the rest of the Empire. Indeed, it seems as though the most damage done to Rome after 1000 AD was done not by Turks, Serbs or Bulgars but by the various efforts of western Europeans. When the Turks finally finish off Rome, it is anti-climactic.

Individual personalities of the Emperors don't often come through very well, though Justinian (not a great emperor) and Basil (a great one) do, as well as one of the Konstantinose(V?). The religious controversy of iconoclasm also seemed far less severe than I was expecting. And in the end, Kaldellis does a good job of explaining why the Romans weren't able to rally one last time to save their civilization in the face of the Turkish expansion: the wealthy were more interested in preserving their wealth in Italian banks and making a deal with the Sultan than in fighting for Constantinople. Those are my thoughts and impressions. Recommended!

[Spencer Lambert · Rating 5 out of 5]

As far as history goes, this is readable, thorough, and balanced - offering a portrayal of social, religious, political lives & the empire's various dynasties at large. If i were to knock this down from 5 stars it would be because some elements (endless ecclesiastical debates) are terribly boring & nuanced - but they're enormously important to the time period.

The sheer scope of this book & the empire itself is jaw-dropping. One of the best things i took from this, is that Romania is a direct continuation of the Roman Empire of antiquity. Referring to it as the Byzantine Empire, or its inhabitants as Greeks, were all Western attempts to "otherize" this powerful Empire, and to substantiate their claims to the inheritance of Rome. The fact that Romania citizens referred to themselves as Romans from the days of Augustus to 1453 shows the direct continuity - they never referred to themselves as Greeks unless forced by Latins.

One of the best elements of this book was the coverage of the Latin sacking of Constantinople. It truly exposed to me that the Crusades (for some/most) was about power/money - simply with a religious stamp of approval. There was little to zero reason for the attack on Constantinople outside greed. Overall the coverage of the Crusades reflected that they were truthfully an outlet for western societies martial classes & poor - an exporting of violence and social mobility. Thisreflection makes the Crusades & Colonialism a connected process and one that can be traced back to Norman behavior & even christianity nomadic kingdoms forming.

Overall, this was the single best way to learn about the Empire that I could imagine. Reaching the end of 1,000 years of history of Constantinople was emotional, until you realize that it enjoys an additional 1,000 years of history as Istanbul which I'm now very excited to dive into and visit.

There are so many fascinating episodes of history here that can't be dived into:
- I'm not sure any EMpire touches East & West as much as Romania did, with episodes from England to Egypt, and Spain to Persia.
- Justinian is one of the most famous leaders of Romania, but here is exposed as a grasping overcontrolling leader that essentially spoiled a great hand he was dealt. He also stamped his name on everything which helps with posterity
- The Catalan invasion of Anatolia felt like i was reading about conquistadores
- The invasion of Timur giving Constaninople another 50 years is a fascinating interlude into the Ottoman Empire that I want to dive more into

[Chaika Philhellene · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kaldellis accomplished his task of making an informative general history of Byzantium. He doesn't just echo what previous sources have established, but questions them and offers more plausible explanations for events and processes throughout the book. It's clear he spared no effort in trying to cover every possible piece of evidence for his narrative. He also takes detours from the narrative to explain evolutions in the Roman society and government (though unfortunately, I found his coverage of the Byzantine court titles & offices system to be a bit lacking). Not only is the book a great read for those who haven't read much on the Eastern Romans, but it works amazingly for consulting and comparing to other sources, including Kaldellis' other works.

There are, to my mind, two problems with this book: Firstly, it's poorly paced. The time period between 330 and 628 is covered far more in-depth than the period between 1204 and 1453. There's little mention or coverage of post-Roman states, be they Trebizond, Morea, Ragusa, Amalfi, Naples, the Crimean goths, to name a few. I understand the lack of sources plays into this lack of balance, but his chapters covering Roman society start to dry up towards the end of the book as well.
Secondly, Kaldellis makes no effort at hiding his disdain for Christianity or the western Latins. This didn't bother me personally, as they match my own biases, but I still find it to be unprofessional for a historian to more-or-less openly show his disdain for any particular group.

Finally, (and somewhat related to my previous point) I found Kaldellis' reasoning for using the Greek name for the basileis bizarre. While I personally prefer the usage of original Greek names as opposed to their English or Latin translations, Kaldellis seems to take this preference more seriously, by openly stating in the Introduction that he finds the translation of Greek names to be offensive. However, he doesn't seem to have the same qualms with translating Arabic, Georgian and a Hungarian name to Greek, instead of using their original version. I had to re-read his statement on the translation of names multiple times to make sure I wasn't hallucinating.

Besides these complains, I still recommend getting this book, even for those who are already quite knowledgeable in Byzantine history, since the book is quite recent and covers lots of new evidence.

[Kevin · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Don't cry because it's over. Smile because it happened.”

Thank you Anthony Kaldellis for this amazing labor of love. You brilliantly guided us through 1100 years of east Rome / Rhomania without sacrificing style, drama or analysis.

A friend of mine said this book suffered from lacking a protagonist. I see his point but I think there is one: Rhomania. Since we begin at 330 AD, it’s not rise and fall, but instead of a tale of resilience. The Romans make mistakes, encounter disasters and never regain prior peaks, but to simply endure from the end of the classical age to the middle of the Renaissance, at the crossroads of nations, is an unmatched accomplishment.

Kaldellis makes a strong case that the cause for resilience lies in Rome’s extraordinary cultural, religious, institutional and ethnic unity. Similarly, Rhomania’s greatest enemy is herself, wasting the res publica’s blood and treasure in disastrous civil wars. In that sense, the Roman Empire ends as she began.

Favorite quotes:

“Henceforth, medieval cities would fall into three categories: unwalled, walled, and Constantinople.”

“There was, for now, no possibility of recovery from this disaster [at Yarmuk], as the emperor had bet all his remaining resources on that one throw.”

“In a sense, the rest of Roman history [after Manzikert] was a struggle to steer a course between Frankish and Turkish predators, hiring one to fight the other, a dynamic that expanded until it filled up the entire strategic horizon.”

“In the eyes of posterity, Konstantinos’ last stand and personal sacrifice redeemed his dynasty and brought a glimmer of dignity to the end of Roman history…. Konstantinos was a man of modest abilities, but he made sure the world knew something epochal had just happened.”

[Daan Koster · Rating 5 out of 5]

'The history of Romanía was one of resilience, marked by an extraordinary capacity to recover from setbacks and adapt to new circumstances.'

Kaldellis heeft in dit boek succesvol de gehele geschiedenis van het Oost-Romeinse Rijk van de stichting tot de val van Constantinopel behandeld. Zijn analyse omvat niet alleen politiek en militaire processen, maar bekijkt onder andere ook economische, sociale, religieuze en culturele fenomenen. De auteur neemt je als lezer van de stichting van 'Nieuw Rome' in de 4e eeuw via de hoogtijdagen van Justinianus in de 6e eeuw mee om vervolgens de catastrofale gebeurtenissen te beschrijven die het rijk troffen door de opkomst van de islam in de 7e eeuw. De veerkracht van dit rijk is vanaf dit punt een voortdurend terugkerend thema dat zijn toppunt vindt in de Komneniaanse restauratie van de 12 eeuw. Het boek beschrijft vervolgens de terminale stagnatie die dit rijk trof tussen de 13e en 15e eeuw met als eindpunt de val van Constantinopel in 1453.

Dit meesterlijke boek dat tien eeuwen bestrijkt, geeft veel aandacht aan details zonder het verhaal uit het oog te verliezen. Iedere geïnteresseerde in het Oost-Romeinse (Byzantijnse) Rijk moet dit boek lezen.

[Nate · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a spectacular book. I haven't read much about the eastern Romans before, so this was a lot of new content for me.

A major thread through it is that the east Romans weren't a leftover fragment from the ancient empire or something different, but rather a straightforward continuation and evolution of it, preserving its core institutions and culture while of course changing over the centuries. It's all changed my mental model for the history of the ancient world into the medieval era.

He never quite says it, but there's an argument here that the Roman Empire didn't 'fall' in the 5th century, but rather continued until the Ottomans conquered Constantinople in 1453. Even after that, there were people who continued to live in the area who still thought of themselves as 'Roman'.

Both this book and a recent short one I read on modern Greek history have really changed how I think about ethnicity and its relation to nation states (particularly with the modern Greeks some of whom still think of themselves as far more connected to 'Rome' than the Ancient Greeks; not unreasonably!). It's all so interesting.

[William Gill · Rating 5 out of 5]

I first encountered Anthony Kaldellis on Robin Pierson's seminal podcast, The History of Byzantium, Having read and enjoyed, his book, Streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood, I was delighted to hear of his one volume history covering the lifespan of the Eastern Roman Empire. I am happy to report that I was not disappointed.
Kaldellis is not only knowledgeable, he is erudite and insightful, carefully dodging the question marks left by the primary sources and then sometimes admitting when an event is just too cloaked in mystery for anyone to fully explain.
He spends a lot of time working through Church history, and while this might seem like tangential overkill for those who only want the swords and sandals of the epic story, it ends up providing enormous insight for how and why the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches grew apart, and for why that split is not likely to be healed.
All in all, this is a deep splendid read for lovers of Constantinople, or for those who may have only recently learned that the Roman Empire actually did not fall in 476.

[James S. · Rating 3 out of 5]

A gargantuan effort, massively detailed and thorough, with everything that comes from that. There are hundreds of pages on topics like taxation and the minutiae of Orthodox doctrinal disputes.

It's a very political work. Reading it, I had a lingering suspicion that the author wrote this book to promulgate his own political ideas: the Eastern Roman Empire survived so long because of strong central government, because of heavy taxation, because the Emperor was accountable to the people. This makes me somewhat wary because it's unclear to what extent the author's political conclusions about the E.R.E. derive from his close study of this era, or from prior abstract personal convictions. This is potentially problematic because it might make him unwilling to consider alternative reasons that, for instance, the Empire might have lasted so long (for instance, geographical reasons).

The least you can say about this book: it's a daunting accumulation of research.