Byzantium: The Early Centuries

A History of Byzantium #1

by John Julius Norwich

'He is brilliant...He writes like the most cultivated modern diplomat attached by a freak of time to the Byzantine court, with intimate knowledge, tactful judgment and a consciousness of the surviving monuments' - "Independent". In this exciting narrative history, John Julius Norwich, one of most accomplished popular historians, reveals the beginning of Byzantium. He tells of the five formative centuries of an empire that would enthrall the western world for more than eleven hundred years.

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

408 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1988

About the author

John Julius Norwich was an English historian, writer, and broadcaster known for his engaging books on European history and culture. The son of diplomat and politician Duff Cooper and socialite Lady Diana Manners, he received an elite education at Eton, Strasbourg, and Oxford, and served in the Foreign Service before dedicating himself to writing full-time.
He authored acclaimed works on Norman Sicily, Venice, Byzantium, the Mediterranean, and the Papacy, as well as popular anthologies like Christmas Crackers. He was also a familiar voice and face in British media, presenting numerous television documentaries and radio programs. A champion of cultural heritage, he supported causes such as the Venice in Peril Fund and the World Monuments Fund.
Norwich’s wide-ranging output, wit, and accessible style made him a beloved figure in historical writing.

Reviews

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Having read all three volumes of Byzantium by Norwich, I have found that they filled in the blank spaces of my knowledge of medieval history, especially of the Levant and Greece, where I had roamed much of my mature youth in my 20's up to my 50's (and still roaming). My reading of Norwich's trilogy eventually revitalized my interest in ancient Rome and the history of the Church. Having travelled and lived in these areas before I read the trilogy, I found myself "connecting the dots" so often that I kept copious notes on tiny notebooks (my way of consuming a well written book).

The richness with which Norwich writes drives the narrative forward. I loved this intellectual light that shone down dark paths of my ignorance and capturing subjects that, being married into the Greek culture, I had to know perforce. By the time I finished reading the trilogy, I found that I was ahead on many points of accuracy on the other side of what most people who had grown up with this history that had been passed down to them through osmosis.

Now I would like to go to Runciman, whose name even sounds medieval and whose books I saw in a Beirut bookstore in the 60's and had vowed to read but never got around to it and then of course, Gibbon.

Note: Jan 2014 The whole trilogy: Early Centuries, Apogee, Decline and Fall is some of the best popular writing of history as I've ever read. It's a long read and a slow one because of the detail. You want to hold each page on your tongue like a rich chocolate bon-bon and wish that it would melt into your brain. I intend to read the whole trilogy again. The history of Byzantium links for the student of history the ancient age with the beginning of the modern.

[Bookwraiths · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very enjoyable and enlightening history of Byzantium. Highly recommended for anyone with an interest in this time period.

[7jane · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a story of how the Roman Empire changed into the Byzantine Empire, how old ways of the Latin world changed into Greek-speaking nation warring with the East (Persia, Muslims, some others), and the West (those various wandering nations coming to conquer and settle into Italy or the Balkans, and such; plus against people wanting to get rid of being ruled by the East Empire). From Constantine the Great in May 330, to empress Irene, pondering on Charlemagne’s marriage proposal in 800. About 1123 years.
(At the start is a couple of maps and necessary royal family tree, and at the end a short list of surviving monuments from this book’s time in Istanbul, plus the list of emperors, both in East and West. One might want to keep a bookmark at either or both ends, to look at while reading.
There are some black and white photos in the middle-ish; and at the corner of each right/hand page in the main story is the year going on in the story at that point, plus helpful side-titles.)

The author tells that only after World War II did the interest in the Byzantine empire begin; before that it was only seen in bad, inferior light – lack of knowledge and materials didn’t help. But this is true: the West owes a debt to this empire for its protection and it’s rich culture influence. One can clearly see as one is reading that there are some part in this history that made in certain that the West is as it is, now.

There are many important main things happening during this story: how Christianity begins its domination over the old faiths, has its own crises (faith details, imagery one in the first iconoclasm (destruction of the imagery), heresies) and is finally divided. The fall of Rome and its way of life, replaced by new people, new ideas, new religion. The arrival of displaced, wandering people, seeking new lands or just shiny things (the Huns, the Goths, the Avars, the Lombards, the Bulgars, etc.). The first Crusade happens, the arrival of Muslim conquerors begins. The Middle Ages begins. Charlemagne arrives into the history and the division of East and West becomes final. It’s a good point to finish this book on.

Of course, when rulers rule, there are so many things that will happen. Rulers come here in so many colors: the smart, the barbaric, the weak-willed, the unwilling, the mad, the ones barely getting anything done before their rule ends, the sickly, the ugly, the ones makes good choices, the ones making unwise choices because feelings, the tyrants, the money spenders, the well-prepared, the conquerors, the exiled, the mutilated, the executed, the ones who vanish without trace, the ones who die in the capital, the ones who die somewhere else without being an exile, the ones refusing to stay in exile, the good in battle, the bad in battle, the women ruling through men, the women ruling with men, and in the case of Irene, woman ruling alone. Child emperors, poisonings, missing/forged messages, sea battles, preparing for sieges, sneaking back home, making secret deals, pulling strings, torture, murder, scandalous marriages. Changing laws, religious opinions, taxes, moving people around from one place to another, destroying and building cities. The usual royal things...

And it’s not just the rulers that get some attention here (or the influential wives). Certain popes and churchmen get their share of attention, particularly when it’s important for the history (including some saints like Maximum the Confessor, John Chrysostom). Some important men, for the emperor, also shine, like Justinian I’s great general Belisarius. And in emperor Zeno’s time, Boethius (the one who wrote “the Consolation of Philosophy”).
Some things stand out: how shocking the Nika rebellion’s bloody engine feels to the reader, the *aww* moment when the last, quite young, emperor in the West meets his conqueror (in the ‘Fall of the West’ chapter) and is pitied so much that he gets his happy ending on a farm. The facepalm at the ways general Belisarius is mistreated and some opportunities get lost. And even sighs at how the hard work of emperor Heraclius is undone so easily after firm victory.

Norwich can’t quite keep his opinions off of the book, at least in the case of Julian, and the last ruler in this book, Irene (whose life is looked closer on on Herrin’s “Women In Purple”). But otherwise, this book is well arranged, the sources carefully chosen, and the maps, family trees, and lists are helpful in following the story. The story of the Byzantine empire begins here, and is told in an interest-grabbing manner. Really looking forward into reading the next book of this (hi)story.

[Sud666 · Rating 5 out of 5]

John Julius Norwich (the Second Viscount Norwich) was an Oxford educated historian. A prolific writer, he was a talented historian who is able to tell a highly detailed story in a very entertaining fashion. This time his focus is on Byzantium.

This first volume covers the "Early Years" of Byzantium stretching from 323-802 AD. Starting with Constantine the Great and the founding of his city and ending with Empress Irene. The story of Byzantium is the story of the Roman Empire in the East. As the city becomes known as Constantinople, it develops its uniquely Eastern outlook on the Imperial Roman tradition. From the various political, religious, and military conflicts to the different outlooks of the Basileus (The Eastern term for "Emperor"), it is all wonderfully explained in a very entertaining manner.

There are some fascinating details inside this marvelous story (which is why reading history is so much fun) about a variety of things. For example-the entire story about Constantine seeing a vision of the Cross was written by the highly biased Christian monk Eusebius who used the words "....he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription Conquer by This (Hoc Vince). At this sight, he himself was struck with amazement, and his whole army also.." ummmm....his "whole army also" would have been 98,000 other soldiers. Strangely (it tends to happen a lot with all religions) not a single soldier has ever said that they saw anything. Only the Christian writers (who were mostly all monks or high prelates of the Church) say it happened. Some, like Christian scholar Lactantius, said Constantine saw it in a dream-this is where it becomes the sign. Thus the paragraph:
"...He says no more. We have no mention of a vision, only of a dream. There is not even a suggestion by this devout Christian apologist that the Saviour or the Cross ever appeared to the Emperor at all. As for 'the heavenly sign', it was simply the monogram of chi (X) and rho (P), the first two Greek letters in the name of Christ, that had long been a familiar symbol in Christian inscriptions..."
Hmmmm....strange how all religions eventually fall apart when one knows the basis of the story. The best part is Lord Norwich showing how Constantine himself was rather vague, if not outright denying, about the whole incident. Constantine was also hedging hisbets, in that he also seemed to be rather tolerant of other Roman/Eastern Roman gods as evidenced by his own statements and actions. Hardly the image we are presented today, since it has been retconned by nearly 1,700 of Christian propaganda about this event and the man himself. Truly fascinating.

There is also a great deal about the original underpinnings of Christianity and how people were trying to get the story straight. Rather reminds me of an RPG where the changes in the lore between the 1st volume and the 3rd can be quite noticeable, such as the case with Christianity as negotiations and retconning become the basis for what, millennia and a half later, is taken as literal truth. Lord Norwich also demonstrates that Constantine, at first, wasn't exclusively Christian and gave respect to other pagan entities.

Other fascinating things- Helena, Constantine's mother, who visited the Holy Places (and allegedly "found" the True Cross in a cistern in Rome. Yeah sure. Of course she did), which makes her the first Christian pilgrim and the start of pilgrimages to the Holy Land.

During the reign of Theodosius (395 AD) he claimed that the edict proclaiming that only those who professed the consubstantiality of the Trinity (the Nicene Creed) could be considered "Catholic"- the first time this designation appears.

From the foundation of the city, to the various Emperors, and into the various enemies (Attila to Totilla)-this book is at once sweeping in scope, yet with a finely detailed grasp of the finer details make this a superb history book. Well written and always engaging, Lord Norwich's history of Byzantium ranks among the best works of its kind. I shall be getting the next book as soon as I can hunt it down. Highly recommended.

[Jonfaith · Rating 3 out of 5]

The fourth century had been a fateful one indeed for the Roman Empire. It had seen the birth of a new capital on the Bosphorus--a capital which, although not yet the sole focus of a united political state, was steadily growing in size and importance while the world of the Western Mediterranean subsided into increasing anarchy; and it had seen the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Emperor and his subjects.

Late in this volume I contemplated my decision not to read the abridged compendium of the three volumes. That matter remains unresolved. What we have is a vast narrative history without much in terms of cause or flavor. The details provided are usually salacious or grim. There isn't much self awareness on display. A more glib reader would view this as a monument to Daddy Duff: see, I haven't wasted my potential.
There was an awareness towards the end that the Eastern Mediterranean was irrevocably changed in the sixth and seventh centuries with first the arrival of the Slavs to the Balkans and then in the Arabian Peninsula with the advent of Islam. Those happenings run at odds with the geography-only thesis of Braudel, but not entirely, as Constantinople held so the Saracens were forced to travers North Africa and enter Europe through Iberia. I didn't care for this as much as I did The Middle Sea: A History of the Mediterranean but alas I am but a third of the way through the project.

[Emiliya Bozhilova · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ренесансовите фрески в Капелата на Медичите поднасят една изненада: портрет на предпоследния византийски император Йоан VIII Палеолог. Съдбата на последните неколцина византийски императори е повече от нерадостна: последният пада в бой с турците през 1453 г. върху руините на завладения град, за да не бъде заловен жив; предходните двама отдават живота си в търсене на невъзможното спасение на своя град, който в единствената останка, до която се е свила някога могъщата империя. Те шестват из християнския запад с години, готови почти на всичко, включително на отказ от независимост на църквата си. Но за помощ е твърде късно - армията на полския крал Владислав Варненчик среща края си край Варна през 1444 г. и възвестява погребалния звън за последния наследник на Рим, пазил вярно над 1100 години портите на Европа от изток.

———
Цялата история на Византия (която никога не е наричала себе си така, а Източна Римска Империя) е люшкане между външни заплахи за унищожение от всички посоки на света, и вътрешни религиозни, социални и икономически катаклизми. Възникнала в резултат на катаклизъм, тя съществува, преодолявайки с нечовешка енергия всеки следващ катаклизъм, за да бъде погребана под последния.

Байрон описва Византия като сплав от римско тяло, гръцки ум и източно-мистична душа. Това творение на римското право, християнската ортодоксия и неусетно вплелите се цивилизационни останки на класическата гръцка и римска античност, е удивително съвременно в уроците си, и преодолява всяка катастрофа (освен последната) с удивителна издържливост.

Когато рационализмът на Рим се сменя с религиозния възход на християнството, Византия е тази, която го ошлайфа и институционализира. Римският папа векове наред е подчинен на византийския император и патриарх. Части на Италия са под византийски контрол дори след разграбванвто на Рим. Юстиниан I почти успява да възроди старата римска империя и построява най-бляскавата църква в света - Света София, като кодифицира в по-модерна версия старото римско право. Ираклий и потомците му подемат решително усилие за прочистване на християнството от суеверия и превръщането му в едно предимно вътрешно изживяване, забраняващо олицетворяването и бъркането му с изображения като иконите. Векове преди реформацията на запад. Но сблъсъкът между светска и религиозна власт завършва с поражение за първата. За разлика от Рим и Запада обаче върховната власт във Византия остава неизменно светската. Византия удържа приливните вълни на нивовъзникналия и войнстващ ислям, които неколкократно се разбиват в стените на Константинопол. Но победа няма, има само оцеляване - Северна Африка и Сирия са завинаги изгубени за империята. Балканите също - от колонизацията на славяни и българи. Както и Италия. Залезът започва да се спуска окончателно в мига, в който империята се отказва от защитните си механизми. Търговията е поета от новоизгряващите венецианци и генуезци, а византийският флот, владял Средиземноморието, изчезва, за да бъде заменен - срещу заплащане и отказ от суверинитет - от венецианския флот.

Истинският край на империята не идва от изток и селджукските турци, а от запад, когато през 1204 г. Четвъртият кръстоносен поход разграбва и оплячкосва Константинопол. Впоследствие Византия е разкъсана на части, някои от които поделени между Венецианската република (която се държи като войнстващ търговски концерн) и част от кръстоносците. Империята никога не се съвзема от този удар и последвалото е бавна агония, която обрича също България и Сърбия. Последните две държави изобщо не схващат картинката, за разлика от умния хан Тервел през 8 век, който отива да отбранява Константинопол срещу арабите. Самите Венеция и Генуа, алчно вкопчени в провалянето на търговския си конкурент, заслужено обричат собственото си бъдеще с късогледството си.

Самите византийци никак не са невинни - те се разпределят на властващи кланове, всеки от който граби трон, земи и данъци до дупка. Тези мафиотски кланове предпочитат да обрекат последния си шанс да прогонят надигащата се турска заплаха в битката при Манцикерт, отколкото да сформират поне временна обща лига срещу опасността. Резултатите са видими.

——
Много може да се разсъждава върху Византия. Нейната история е удивително преплетена с нашата - България е първата независима държава, която цъфва в задния двор на империята и отказва да се разкара оттам, като на моменти сама храни амбиции за Константинопол. И е също толкова късогледа за големите заплахи, вкопчена в дребнави боричкания.

У нас има добра византоложка и османистка школа, най-малко поради историческата и географската близост. Западняците на свой ред пренебрегват Византия или като Едуард Гибън - открито я презират, без ни най-малко да я разбират. Други като Кенет Кларк стигат дотам в невежото си презрение, че дори (в неговата книга за цивилизацията) я считат за ненужна бележка под линия, която нямала нищо общо с Европа и и била по-чужда даже от исляма (?!). Тези високомерни сноби обаче задават дълго време тона в историческото възприятия, и тяхното манипулативно, пропагандно опростяване ни лишава от ценно познание.

Мутафчиев, Острогорски и Норуич са представители на обратното течение. Без навирен нос и гръмовно громене, те възкресяват над 1000 изгубени години, и то само повърхностно, без задълбаване.

Лекциите на Мутафчиев са ценни с погледа си към иконоборството. Завършени през 1943 г., малко преди смъртта на професора, те са исторически документ сами по себе си. На светския поглед от първата половина на 20 век, но и на незабравения гняв от съюзническата и първата световна войни. Мутафчиев се впуска в излишно громене и морализаторстване в доста моменти, а е и откровен женомразец. Но е и ерудиран познавач, който си знае работата и успява в други моменти да е доста проницателен и аналитичен, правещ косвени паралели с новото време. Лекциите приключват с 1204 г.

Острогорски като че ли е по-премерен. Но това в само привидно. Писал през 60-те, у него дреме онази мъглява руска православна мистика, неотървала се от бляна си за Третия Рим. Острогорски замита под килима всичко иконоборско или сектантско, което не съответства на официалната (днешна) религиозна доктрина. Просто избягва да пояснява някои моменти - избира премълчаването. Не че обемът му позволява да се шири, но предпочитанията са видни. Ужасяващо неадекватен на моменти е родният превод. Не знам от коя година е, но “Прозорец” са били жестоко немарливи в редакцията не просто на имена и транслитерации, а на значение на думите! Има цели изречения без никакъв ясен смисъл просто защото преводачката не е имала представа от материята и си е измисляла значения.

Норуич ( тук , тук и тук ) е най-балансиран, може би защото е по-съвременен. Той също тълкува и дава оценки, но доста по-умерено, и някак не така яростно като Мутафчиев или подмолно като Острогорски. Недостатъкът при Норуич е, че той често се увлича в западния контекст, но не е прекалено. И уви, подобно на горните двама, не намира време за културата и изкуството.

———
Историята е сплав от несъвместимости. Не можеш да познаваш родната история без контекста. В историята рядко има добри и лоши. И историята е сбор от нишки във всички географски посоки, преминаващи през всички епохи. Изолация няма. Но пък има много липси, изгорели в пожарите, и умишлена пропаганда, предназначена както за онова отминало време, така и за бъдещите читатели. Оруеловите закони на “1984” са били прекрасно познати още през 3 в.н.е., когато започва този конкретен отрязък. Така че се иска четене с разбиране и мислене. Но най-вече четене.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love the way Norwich delves into the labyrinthine politics of the time. I haven't read the other two books in the series, but some day I will, perhaps when I'm old and grey and good for nothing else. So that hopefully will be a while yet. Norwich writes wittily and knowledgeably as one of the leading experts. I think I have a problem with time and change. I watched a BBC documentary series about Turkey in 1971 called The Gates of Asia. I remembered him having a healthy virility about him, sunburnt and muscular as he crouched over carvings in the scorching sun of Eastern Turkey in the summer, and yet when he came on TV a few months ago in connection with an art series I was shocked to see a stooped old man, forgetting that 38 years separated the two. I've noticed a few lines in my own face, but must confess that on balance I feel I am wiser, more confident and knowledgeable, and better looking, than I was even thirty years ago. What has all this to do with Byzantium. Byzantium, the fabulous city of gold, the city of the world's desire, is also a state of mind, I feel, a throwback, a yearning, for a time when anything was possible. A lost golden age, like youth and love. Something radiant in the heart.

Once out of nature I shall never take
My bodily form from any natural thing,
But such a form as Grecian goldsmiths make
Of hammered gold and gold enamelling
To keep a drowsy Emperor awake;
Or set upon a golden bough to sing
To lords and ladies of Byzantium
Of what is past, or passing, or to come.

[Chase Parsley · Rating 5 out of 5]

THIS IS HISTORY AT ITS FINEST. Infinity plus one out of infinity stars...Norwich triumphs! The Byzantines brim with Roman pride, brainwashed Christianity, brutal violence, and a near constant struggle for power. Norwich breathes life into the "Dark Ages" like never before. This first of three books covers the late 200s to the early 800s, and I was shocked at the fantastic stories and vital historical connections made throughout. Any professional or amateur historian ought to read this; I know I will read it again decades from now with just as much pleasure. I devoured it in about 2 weeks at the expense of my job and social life.

My top five parts (although we could have a field day with a much longer list):

5) The Persian-Byzantine War involving Chosroes II and Heraclius which battered both sides so bad that it allowed the Muslims to rise
4) The EPIC conquest between Belisarius and Totila to get the Western Roman Empire back
3) All of the religious councils to settle early religious disputes...for the Byzantines it was one Emperor, one faith, and they took this very seriously
2) Justinian II's horrific rise, fall, rise, fall roller coaster ride as Emperor. A movie needs to be made here!
1) The Nika Riots - Justinian I brutally suppresses a revolt...really all of Justinian's reign is superb

Again, awesome book, I highly recommend it!

[Andrew Reece · Rating 5 out of 5]

John Julius Norwich Narrates Byzantium's Early Centuries, From The Age Of Constantine The Great To The Reign Of The Empress Irene.

The Byzantine Empire possesses a magnificent, eleven-hundred-year legacy of such scale that many scholars & historians devote their entire lives towards the study of but small periods of it, due to the staggering number of princes, potentates, large-scale battles, faction struggles & civil wars which dominate the eastern Roman empire's history. At the height of its power, the empire was comprised of a monolithic sovereign state which spanned all of Asia Minor & a sizeable portion of the eastern & western Mediterranean regions including North Africa, South Italy & Sicily, the Greek Islands & the Baltic Peninsula. These regions were assimilated into the empire by renowned imperial generals such as Belisarius, whose rivalry with the emperor Justinian was as legendary as his exploits on the battlefield, & Narses the Armenian, the deciding factor which won the Gothic War & established a Byzantine presence in Italy that pervaded for centuries.

The line of emperors appearing in the early Byzantine succession are as varied & cosmopolitan as the empire itself, & their ranks can boast such diverse historical figures as Constantine I the Great, who is considered Byzantium's progenitor due to his decision to migrate the imperial capital from Rome to Constantinople, the Macedonian-born emperor Justinian I & his wife, the empress Theodora, whose ambitious building programmes led to Byzantium's gaining its reputation for stunning, period architecture such as the Church of St. Sophia, now called the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, Turkey, & the oft-misunderstood Empress Irene, whose controversial iconodule policies temporarily reversed the harsh iconoclast edicts of her husband, Leo IV, that had led to the senseless destruction of thousands of pieces of priceless religious artwork & artifacts of worship across the empire.

This cloth-bound, hardcover edition of John Juilus Norwich's Byzantium: The Early Centuries, is volume I in his historic Byzantium trilogy & is published by the London-based Folio Society, a premium book manufacturer which specializes in deluxe, high-quality collector's editions from all literary genres. The book is printed on Caxton wove paper & is part of a boxed set, featuring fifty-five full color photographs of Byzantine art & architecture which are exclusive to this Folio edition. There are also maps of Constantinople, Italy, Asia Minor & the Middle East, The Balkan Peninsula & The Mediterranean World, in addition to The Family Trees of Diocletian, Constantine the Great, Valentinian & Theodosius, The Families of Leo I & Leo III, The Families of Justinian & Theodoric, The Family of Tiberius Constantine, finally, The Family of Heraclius. There is a list of Byzantine emperors from 284-814 AD, a list of locations & monuments in Istanbul, Turkey which the author recommends visiting, & a six-page bibliography of reference material.

The introduction to John Julius Norwich's Byzantium: The Early Centuries begins with a rather startling excerpt from William Edward Hartpole Lecky's 1869 History of European Morals, which outlines in acute detail a number of the Byzantine empire's faults & shortcomings, followed by Norwich's brief description of his own scant exposure to Byzantium growing up in England -- "During my five years at one of England's oldest & finest public schools, Byzantium seems to have been the victim of a conspiracy of silence. I cannot honestly remember it being mentioned, far less studied; & so complete was my ignorance that I should have been hard put to define it in even general terms until I went to Oxford. Many people, I suspect, feel similarly vague today; & it is for them, above all, that this book has been written."

Later in the introduction he reminisces on a similarly themed conversation he had with a friend -- "What, you may ask, ever induced me to take on so formidable an assignment? In fact the idea originated not with me at all but with my friend Bob Gottlieb, some time before he left my American publishers to edit the New Yorker, & though I remember feeling a little daunted by the magnitude of the task he suggested, I do not think there was any real hesitation." No other empire on Earth can boast a legacy that combines the culture & learning of ancient Greece with the civil engineering & military prowess of the SPQR, & with the Byzantium trilogy, Norwich has completed what will likely be considered the magnum opus of his prestigious writing career. Each volume in the saga covers a span of centuries in the storied history of Byzantium, with this first entry beginning during the empire's prehistory in 284 AD & continuing all the way up to the ascent of Charlemagne, whose reign lasted through the period of the Greek empress Irene's rule, ending with his death in 814.

The story begins in Chapter 1, Constantine the Great, where in the year 285, the Roman emperor Diocletian makes the earth-shattering decision to divide his vast empire into what became known as the Tetrarchy, promoting his old general Maximian to the rank of Augustus & raising two more lieutenants, Galerius & Constantius Chlorus, to the rank of Caesar. Chlorus's son, the future Constantine the Great, quickly becomes Diocletian's most trusted battle commander, & he accompanies his lord on military campaigns in Egypt & against the Persians in 295 & 298, respectively, but Diocletian comes to another momentous impasse when he voluntarily relinquishes his authority after twenty years in power. One of Norwich's stellar notes inform the reader that, after receiving a letter from the now ex-Augustus Maximian imploring him to once again rule the empire, the humble Diocletian demurs, with the noted English historian Edward Gibbon writing of him, "he rejected the temptation with a smile of pity, calmly observing that, if he could show Maximian the cabbages which he had planted with his own hands at Salona, he should no longer be urged to relinquish the enjoyment of happiness for the pursuit of power."

In Chapter 2, The Adoption of the Faith: 323-6, over the next decade Constantine fought a series of wars against the remnants of Diocletian's Tetrarchy, defeating rebels & imperial usurpers in a number of pitched battles which included the famous clash with Maximian's son Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge in 312, the very spot where Constantine witnessed his now-legendary vision that led him to embrace Christianity during the battle. This was followed by the emergence within the Christian Church of a series of movements deemed by the ecclesiastical hierarchy as schismatic, most notably a faction of Christians who followed the teachings of an Alexandrian preacher, Arius, whose doctrine eventually became known as Arianism. The Arians practiced a fundamentally different set of beliefs than their Christian counterparts, which involved the way they worshiped Jesus Christ in relation to other members of the Holy Trinity.

Norwich also covers the monumental shift of the empire's capital city from Rome to Byzantium, a process which literally took decades before it was finally complete. In Chapter 3, Constantinople: 326-337, during the year 326, when Constantine the Great was planning the expansive layout of his new imperial capital, he was said to have used the tip of his spear to trace the outline of where he wanted its future walls to fall, & when those accompanying him expressed their surprise at how grand his vision was, he merely replied, "I shall continue until he who walks ahead of me bids me to stop." The author's attention to detail in the entire Byzantium saga is nothing short of remarkable; throughout the main text the reader will run across a myriad of stylishly chosen quotations from old histories & the musings of scholars, both ancient & modern, which add immeasurably to the tone & atmosphere -- with a John Julius Norwich book, the audience is treated to the very best the history genre has to offer.

In the wake of Constantine's death in 337, there erupted a fierce war of succession for control of the empire, as his three sons -- Constantine II, Constantius & Constans, all vied for the imperial throne. In all there were five family members to whom Constantine the Great had bestowed the rank of Caesar, the remaining two being his half-brothers Julius Constantius & Dalmetius, but in the chaos after his funeral there was a note planted in the deceased emperor's hand stating that his siblings had had him poisoned, most likely a stratagem of Constantine II, & the half-brothers & their families were eliminated as rivals, leaving only two young children, Gallus, & Julian, who later became 'the Apostate'. Adding to this volatile state of affairs, at a banquet thrown at Augustodunum in 340 by one of Constans's ministers there had arisen a would-be usurper, Magnentius, who was not defeated until 351, at the Battle of Mursa. Norwich has aided his readers immeasurably by inserting & bracketing the year at the top of every other page.

The Roman emperor Julian's reign as Caesar & Augustus is Norwich's primary topic in Chapter 4, Julian the Apostate: 337-363. After receiving an ill omen foretelling his downfall, Constantius dies of a fever in the city of Tarsus, in modern-day Turkey, which leaves Julian in sole charge of the entire Roman empire. Once in power Julian sets into motion a number of important reforms, which included increasing the power of the senate & a revamping of the cursus publicus, the public transport system for administrative personnel & imperial freight. The author utilizes material from an interesting group of sources for this chapter, including the Greek sophist Libenius' Orations & the Roman soldier-turned-historian Ammianus Marcellinus's The Later Roman Empire. Julian was also a capable general in the field, & during his reign as Caesar he distinguished himself fighting against the Franks & Germanic tribes on the Rhine River, & as sole emperor he began a campaign against the Persian Sassanid empire & its fearsome king, Shapur & it is during this expedition that he meets his end at the Battle of Ctesiphon after being mortally wounded by an enemy spear. Among Julian's most famous acts was his renunciation of Christianity & return to the old Roman pagan religion, & this chapter is prefaced with an excerpt from his Hymn to Cybele, Mother of the Gods.

The father of the future emperor, Theodosius the Great, had achieved distinction fighting the Picts & Scots in Roman Britain during the joint reigns of Valentinian & Valens, & it was only matter of time until the son received his own opportunity to shine during the reign of their successor, Gratian, in 383, which was a year that also saw Gratian's untimely murder at a fateful banquet in Lyons, under a banner of truce. Theodosius himself was an unassuming man, lacking decadence & frivolity, humble & considerate. Norwich provides an excellent description of him in Chapter 5, The Empire at Bay: 363-395 -- "In all the years that he had wielded the supreme power, he had never impressed his Empire -- as Julian had done in a fraction of the time - with the stamp of a huge & dominating personality. On the contrary, he had been quiet, cautious almost to a fault, & totally without flamboyance. Readers of this brief account of his career may well find themselves wondering, not so much whether he deserved the title of 'the Great' as how he ever came to acquire it in the first place." Later in the passage he extols some of this most underrated of Roman emperors' accomplishments -- "In his civil legislation he showed, again & again, a consideration for the humblest of his subjects that was rare indeed among rulers of the fourth century. What other prince would have decreed that any criminal, sentenced to execution, imprisonment or exile, must be first allowed thirty days' grace to put his affairs in order?...Or that no farmer should be obliged to sell his produce to the state at a price lower than he would receive on the open market?"

In Chapter 9, The Rise of Justinian: 493-532, according to a legend, the emperor Justin I came to power in a chance occurrence during the reign of Anastasius I Dicorus, after the reigning emperor, when determining who would inherit his empire, had decided to hide a slip of paper upon which was written the word, 'regnum', under the cushions of one of three couches in his antechamber, & he then summoned his three nephews to see which of them sat on the divan. As it turned out, two of them tried to sit on the same couch, so Anastatius took this as a sign that the next emperor would not be of his line. The next person to enter his chambers was Justin, his comes excubitorum (commander of the excubitors), & this the emperor interpreted as an omen from God. In the unsuspecting Justin the elderly Anastasius had finally found his next heir. Another accounting attributes Justin's rise to the political machinations of his nephew, Petrus Sabbatius, who later took the now-famous name of Justinian I, in homage to his uncle. As emperor, Justin did much to heal the wounds between the Eastern & Western branches of Christianity, & although his education was limited, his nephew greatly assisted him in matters of politics & statecraft.

Norwich characterizes the first five years of Justinian's reign with the rise of confidence men such as John of Cappadocia, a civic official who eventually became a Praetorian Prefect & excelled in the art of tax collection, & according to the Byzantine administrator & scribe John of Lydia, he introduced twenty-six new taxes & staunchly fought against corruption, also greatly reducing the power within the government of the senior provincial office-holders. Tribonian was another key individual in Justinian's administration, & he assisted the emperor in the monumental task of completely rewriting Roman law by streamlining & more closely aligning it with Christian doctrine. In 529 Tribonian published the finished version of the Codex, followed by another in 533, the Digest, this one of jurists' writings amounting to fifty books of material. Justinian's The Digest of Roman Law is available from Penguin Classics.

Chapter 17, The First Iconoclasts: 711-775 chronicles the dubious reigns of the two Byzantine emperors, Leo III the Isaurian, & his son, Constantine V 'Copronymus', whose most enduring legacy was their senseless destruction of thousands of Christian idols, artwork & relics throughout the empire. Iconoclasm is literally defined as, 'the smashing of icons'. Leo III began life as a peasant living in Germanica, an old Roman village that the emperor Justinian II, in one of his population migrations, had relocated to Thrace, & he had attracted the emperor's attention in 705 while Justinian was marching on Constantinople with his vast army. His skills & his ambition impressed his benefactor, & eventually he rose to become strategos, or imperial governor, of the Theme of Anatolikon. Leo was quickly confronted with a Saracen invasion led by the Muslim generals Maslama & Suleiman, & while it is somewhat unclear what actually transpired, some historians believe that Leo entered into some sort of secret agreement with the Arab commanders & persuaded them to call off their invasion. He then allies himself with Artabasdus, strategos of the Armeniakon, & unbelievably, he usurps the imperial throne by forcing the reigning emperor, Theodosius III, into abdication.

The Saracen generals make their return, however, this time raising the stakes in an all-out siege of the Byzantine capital, but the crafty Leo yet again insinuates his way into their trust, & consequently, double-crosses them at every turn. Starvation, disease & Greek fire all took their toll on the Saracen invaders, however, the Byzantine defenders were reinforced by a large Bulgarian army, which inflicted 22,000 casualties & effectively ended the siege in a disastrous turn of events for Maslama's forces. Norwich narrates the aftermath of Leo's triumph -- "As for the emperor himself, he had amply justified his bid for power. He had, moreover, made a considerably larger contribution to his subjects' deliverance than most of them ever knew. As near-contemporary Arab accounts make clear, he had been in touch with Maslama & Suleiman from the start, making them endless promises that he had no intention of keeping & offering them copious advice that he knew would prove disastrous." Norwich transforms each major Byzantine emperor's reign into its own harrowing microhistory; each emperor's story is wonderfully unique, & the author manages to make all of them stand out in grandiose fashion.

In closing, John Julius Norwich's Byzantium: The Early Centuries has everything a reader could possibly want in an historical narrative -- a complex, nuanced plotline, literally dozens of colorful, one-of-a-kind characters, treacherous conspiracies, epic, high-stakes battles -- everything about this first entry bespeaks the work of a master historian. The volume has not so much been written as it has been crafted, by the accomplished hand of a literary artisan at the apex of his profession. Near the end of the book, in the closing passages of Chapter 18, Irene: 775-802, Norwich sums up in admirable fashion this first great period of Byzantine history, emphasizing the unprecedented cultural & municipal growth of Constantinople, & the resourceful, energetic people of the empire, who made the experience of learning about this magnificent historical period all the more worthwhile, both as a reader & a reviewer:

"Four hundred & seventy-two years had elapsed since that spring morning when Constantine the Great had inaugurated his New Rome at the mouth of the Bosphorus - a period of time approximately equal to that which separates us from the Reformation - during which both the Roman Empire & the city which lay at its heart had changed beyond recognition. The Empire itself was much diminished: Syra & Palestine, Egypt & North Africa & Spain had all been engulfed by the Muslim tide, while Central Italy had fallen first to the Lombards & then to the Franks, who had passed it on in their turn to the Pope. Constantinople itself, on the other hand, had grown dramatically, & was by now incontestably the largest city, as well as the richest & most sumptuous, in the world." Thank you so very much for reading, I hope you enjoyed the review!

[Kieran Van De Riet · Rating 5 out of 5]

Consatine is cooked

Chi-Rho looks pretty cool

What is the nature of Christ?

Severely weaken empire multiple times over the question of the Jesus juice

Justinian big builds

Chariot racing hooligans - literally called green team and blue team

Fell in love with empress Theodora. It's not healthy for me to fall in love with women from the 500s

Belisarius is best bro. Big feels for the guy

Empire goes to shit

Heraclius saves empire then loses his mind - classic

Greek fire solves a lot of problems.

Goes to shit again

Empire saved again leo by Leo but fucks up with getting iconoclasm started

Chipping off noses gets popular

A change in trend from nose cutting to putting out eyes

Donation of Constantine is proto mergers and acquisitions

Rebirth of infatuation for empress Irene. Time period does not change the level of unhealthiness.

[Max Nemtsov · Rating 5 out of 5]

поселившись в Македонии, нельзя не осознавать, что чуть ли не целиком она стоит на Византии: буквально ходишь по культурным слоям глубиной почти в три тысячи лет. а в этом месте у меня, как и у всех совецких детей, провал в историческом образовании. школьная история древнего мира заканчивалась на крахе Западной Римской империи, вторжениях варваров, гуннов и прочей дикой братии, а дальше прожектор наркомпроса смещался уже на т.н. "средние века", т.е, государства всяких франков, выросшие на ее обломках. и начинались "темные века", хотя тьмы там было явно поменьше, чем ныне. в историю ссср, как легко догадаться, Византия тоже не весьма вписывалась, ну кроме, разве что, байки про шит на вратах Цареграда.

почему так вышло я не знаю, бо специально историей не занимался, но у меня есть версия, что совдетям столько Византии не давали, потому что тогда бы пришлось подробно рассказывать о христианстве, мало того - о православии, а у нас научный атеизьм. что же преподают в средних школах сейчас, я не знаю, но вряд ли что-то хорошее, скорее всего какую-нибудь хуйню. вряд ли даже православие преподают правдиво, уж больно неприглядна история христианства вообще, ибо ведь даже Аммиан Марцеллин, штатный историк Юлиана Отступника, в свое время писал:

No wild beasts are so hostile to men as are Christian sects in general to one another. (Ammianus Marcellinus, XXII, v, 4)

почему, кстати, Юлиана называют Отступником, решительно неясно - вернее почему за столько веков не стряхнули с него христианское погоняло. отступником же он не был даже с точки зрения тогдашних христиан, потому что никогда не был христианином (так, пару раз в церковку заходил). наоборот, он всегда хранил исключительную верность древним богам античного пантеона.

в общем, такие исторические нарративы, как у Нориджа (которого русские, по своему пролеткультовскому безграмотному обыкновению, называют Норвичем), как выяснилось, мне вполне нравятся: все дело здесь в угле зрения и масштабе. это такая "война престолов", только в реале - ну или примерно в нем. также и херберт привольно занимал отсюда для своей фиготени про планету учкудук, только делал это без особого огонька и таланта. а в истории, между тем, есть и персонажи, и сюжеты, и детали, готовые для настоящей литературы. также при чтении все-таки возникает некое подобие общей картины, хоть и не обязательно точное. запомнить же всю эту династическую и междуусобную хуету не представляется возможным, конечно. ну а местные друзья надо мной хихикают, говорят, что история Византии еще не закончена и продолжается, потому что в Византии мы и живем до сих пор.

...что, в общем, не удивительно, потому что переселения народов, например, и обмены населения не в 20 века придумали. в 7 веке уже славян на южный берег Мраморного моря организованно переселяли, так что между турками и греками это что-то родственное. а кроме того чистки лучших военачальников тоже не сталин придумал, а, как минимум, Юстиниан Безносый.

...с иконоборчеством Лео Сирийца тоже интересно: я не знал, например, что идолопоклонство в христианстве (задолго до раскола) обрело такие пропорции, что сами по себе иконы могли выступать в роли крестных родителей при крещении (идолопоклонники уместно при этом назывались "иконодулами"). тут хочешь не хочешь, а начнешь с пониманием относиться к исламскому хараму на фигуративное искусство. понятно, что идолопоклонство это не изведено и по сию пору, тьху, смотреть противно. только теперь оно частью сакрализовано в музэях и галереях, конечно, а там, к счастью, к иконам негигиенично не прикладываются, могут разве что борщом облить.

...протоправославие, кстати не мешало некоторым императорам (мы не знаем про остальное население, главгерои тут императоры) быть, например, гомосексуалистами или бисексуалами. и нормально так монтировалось - возможно, от того, что вопрос религиозно-метафизический, о божественной или человеческой природе бога т.е., они тоже не до конца решили. потом, конечно, все стало гораздо скучнее.

...также в контексте хорошо видно, в какой именно миг и зачем из своих песков на цивилизованный мир полезла исламская саранча, "сторонники самой миролюбивой религии в мире", которые успокоиться не могут до сих пор, эти реликтовые ковролеты и камнепоклонники.

из странного: автор явно путает Херсонес Таврический, Херсон и Корсунь-Шевченковский, да и с другими нынешними топонимами, особенно к северу от Черного моря, у него в голове каша.

[AskHistorians]

Don't get the shortened version, it'll seem too rushed. Norwich is a master storyteller with an eye for details, and livens up the thousand plus year history of the Byzantine Empire as the entertaining soap opera that it really was. Also goes into the fall of the west in his first book with sufficient detail to be a solid book on the fall of the western Roman Empire as well.

[Yair Zumaeta Acero · Rating 5 out of 5]

Resulta increíble que este extraordinario libro - y en general toda una trilogía escrita hace más de 30 años por el grandioso historiador y divulgador británico John Julius Norwich - haya visto la luz en castellano tan solo en 2024. Un nuevo éxito y un agradecimiento eterno para la siempre grande editorial "Ático de los Libros". "Bizancio: Los Primeros Siglos" es la primera entrega de una apoteósica trilogía que relata los 1123 años y 18 días de duración de aquel enigmático, glorioso - y muchas veces olvidado - Imperio Bizantino, desde su fundación por Constantino el Grande un lunes 11 de mayo de 330 e.c.; hasta su conquista bajo la espada del sultán otomano Mehmet II el 29 de mayo de 1453. En esta primera entrega, asistiremos a los primeros 500 años del llamado "Imperio Romano de Oriente", desde el ascenso al poder de Constantino I, pasando por la inauguración de Constantinopla como la "Nueva Roma"; hasta la coronación de Carlomagno como emperador romano de Occidente un 24 de diciembre del año 800, marcando por primera vez para Bizancio, la aparición de un rival del antiguo trono imperial romano. Y en la mitad de este apasionante lapso, nos encontraremos con la adopción del cristianismo en el mundo grecorromano, la caída de Roma en el 476 e.c., el surgimiento de los ejércitos del Islam y sus conquistas, las guerras persas, las encarnizadas luchas iconoclastas, la aparición de grandes emperadores como Justiniano o Heraclio; de impresionantes generales como Belisario o la preservación y desarrollo del arte y la cultura del mundo antiguo, mientras el antiguo Imperio Romano de Occidente se sumía en la anarquía y la oscuridad. Cinco siglos narrados de manera magistral por la pluma prodigiosa de Norwich, quien combina una prosa encantadora con ciertos momentos de ironía, humor y eufemismos divertidos, mucha erudición y un ritmo narrativo trepidante. A través de sus letras, presenciaremos un desfile de crueldad monumental, discusiones teológicas, asesinatos, mutilaciones y cegueras, libertinaje, intrigas cortesanas (Teoroda, Eudoxia e Irene como figuras expertas en ello), grandes batallas, proyectos urbanísticos y arquitectónicos ciclópeos... en resumen, el origen de un gran Imperio que duraría toda la Edad Media con una pompa y grandeza pocas veces alcanzadas en la historia humana.

Sin temor a equivocarme, esta obra magna se lee y se aprecia a la altura de la de otros maestros como Edward Gibbon, Ernst Stein o Norman H. Baynes. Altamente recomendado!

[Mark Rossiter · Rating 4 out of 5]

John Julius Norwich, author of this history of the Eastern Roman Empire from the founding of Constantinople in 330 until the coronation in 800 in Rome by the Pope of Charlemagne as rival Emperor of the West, is a jolly entertaining English upper class sort of storyteller. He has all the credentials: son of Duff and Diana Cooper, he went to Eton, then joined the diplomatic corps before retiring at 35 to write history books; he is the father of Artemis Cooper, herself married to the historian Anthony Beevor and currently biographer of the dashing English upper class travel writer and proto-Bond Patrick Leigh Fermor. And it must be said, his stories are pithy and colourful, designed to extract the last ounce of entertainment value from that previous aristocracy, the Roman-cum-Byzantine. He plucks a juicy summary from the sources, eliminates any tedious ingredients, enlivens it with crisp judgments, peppers it with anecdotal footnotes, and moves on. No sins of commission to complain about; though as he admits, he finds people more interesting than trends. The common people carry on, popping up occasionally to rise in support of or against this or that emperor, regent, patriarch, powerbroker. Yah boo hiss hooray they go, and the pantomime continues, within the hippodrome and without, but mostly beyond the heavily guarded end of the passage that connects to the imperial quarters.

[Andrés CM · Rating 4 out of 5]

Norwich narra estos hechos con un estilo ameno y riguroso, basado en una amplia documentación y una profunda erudición. Su obra no es solo una crónica de los acontecimientos políticos y militares, sino también un retrato de la sociedad, la economía, la religión, la cultura y el arte de Bizancio, que nos permite conocer mejor este periodo histórico.
RESEÑA COMPLETA: https://atrapadaenunashojasdepapel.bl...

[Mel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Norwich at his knowledgeable best. Read and enjoy!

[Dimitar Angelov · Rating 5 out of 5]

As always Norwich did not deceive. Always thorough in his research and unmatched in his skill to bring history to life. However, I'm keeping my further comments until I'll have read all 3 books.

[Jonathan · Rating 3 out of 5]

In spite of the startling biases that the author is quite comfortable holding (in the 1970s), his storytelling is sassy and companionable, and a lot of fun to read. I love the way he quotes Gibbon as though his buddy Gibbon (who precedes Norwich by 200 years and is even more sassy) laid this quip on him the other day at dinner. It's sort of like being told the history of the Byzantine Empire by an old British university professor, waving a cigar and holding a glass of brandy, by the fire, while he punctuates the narrative with indefensible slurs or a wink and nudge that makes you uncomfortable, but you're still sitting there in awe of the effect of the setting, and of being in the presence of academic royalty. It's a little like that.

[Sequoyah · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of those unique works of history where a very competent writer—Norwich's prose is reminiscent of Gibbon and Durant (though no one, in my heart, competes with Durant)--takes on a subject that necessitates both eloquence and wit. The Early Centuries begins with the Emperor Diocletian's splitting of the empire in two, to be shared by two men, and his subsequent abdication of the throne to be a cabbage farmer. It ends, five hundred years later with the papal coronation of Charlemagne, the "jumped up barbarian chieften." Needless to say, this book is not at all large enough to cover 500 hundred years to be the "full version" of the story next to Norwich's single-volume work on the Byzantine Empire. This is the biggest, and only, flaw to me. The meat of the book is about 360 pages, and Norwich explicitly does not go into much detail on anything he deems not concerning "this story." Which, to me at least, would have been greatly appreciated, and I think Norwich should have written three separate thousand-page volumes, instead of three separate volumes that equal a thousand pages. Even with the very sparse and far-reaching primary sources, I think he could have written a lot more.

Despite this shortcoming, Norwich tells this story impeccably, often providing that historian commentary that I really love to see. It is almost strange that, in my opinion, historical works on antiquity really seem to be the exact time period for modern historians to really show distinctly pleasurable prose writing. Here is an example of Norwich's truly exemplary use of the English language:

"The fourth century had been a fateful one indeed for the Roman Empire. It had seen the birth of a new capital on the Bosphorus--a capital which, although not yet the sole focus of a united political state, was steadily growing in size and importance while the world of the Western Mediterranean subsided into increasing anarchy; and it had seen the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Emperor and his subjects. It ended, however, on a note of bathos: in the West with silence and inertia in the face of the barbarian menace, in the East with a whimper--the only possible description for the reactions of the most feckless Emperor yet to occupy the throne of Constantinople as he watched successive strong men meet their variously violent deaths, while his own vicious and domineering wife insulted and humiliated him in public, holding him up to ridicule as a fool, an incompetent and a cuckold. The new century, on the other hand, began with a bang. In the early summer of 401, Alaric the Goth invaded Italy."

This is an example of superb historiography that is both compelling and stylistically satisfying. We also see Norwich's wit on occasion; though not as much as Durant's, it is still appreciated:

"Pelagius had been popular and universally respected; Zeno was neither. In his youth he had been renowned as an athlete--the Anonymus Valesii rather surprisingly attributes his fleetness of foot to the fact that he was born without kneecaps--but in all other fields he had been a failure."

What is interesting about this work is that it can also be considered a history of the early Christian church. The pervasiveness of religion in the story and its corruption is enough to pull your hair out. As well is the number of competent individuals destroyed by the incompetent; too such an extent that 1 out of 10 names in this story can bear the title of guileless or at least having any noble attributes whatsoever. With that being said, I would like to be an armchair statesmen and detail what I think are the largest defects of the Byzantine Empire, of which the entire history is founded on terrible decisions and it is remarkable that it lasted more than a century let alone ten centuries.

First off, of course is the worst decision Constantine the Great made at the very outset of this history: involving religion in his statecraft. The Empire would have been a thousand times better with a secular government. Over and over Norwich relates how provinces are falling left and right, yet the Emperor, no matter who, was too busy with theologic disputes to take care of his subjects. Annoyingly so, emperor after successive emperor meddles in religious affairs to which either he kills his subjects for something as trivial as thinking Christ is of the same Energy as God rather than the same nature, or he himself is deposed because of something just as trivial. It is absolutely absurd to see that constantly with nearly every sovereign becoming victim of this same fate.

Next is the raising up of the Emperors' wives to the rank of Augusta and giving them any power at all. We can even spread this to the entire nepotistic issue of a monarchy in general, but the Augustas throughout this story cause much unneeded detrimant to a unified rule. We see this most especially in the power that Theodora, the wife of Justinian I, and that of Irene held. Causing untold dissension and bloodshed, and unltimately undermining the good that their husbands would try to do.

The last that I'll speak of is that of many Emperors' myopic and self-mutilating choice of purging their own subjects. The Bulgars, the Arabs, The Huns, any amount of barbarian tribes are sacking Byzantine towns, yet the Emporors constantly whittle down their own competent soldiers and citizens for stupid reasons. Invariably, this even leads to the death of the Emperor in a coup. Its like none of the Emperors gave time to the history of their own seat, rather than giving all time and thought to theology.

This is a book full of tragedy and intrigue, worst of all, in my opinion, is that of Belisarius. But I wholeheartedly recommend this book to all. The story of the Byzantines has been a blank spot in my knowledge of history for too long, and it is such an important subject that I believe more historians should stop obsessing over the period of the Republic's fall, and start exploring this much more interesting subject.

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

The first part of John Julius Norwich's Byzantium trilogy is an epic look at a once great civilization that is often little studied in modern times. This is the account of what happened after the Roman Empire "fell," and how it struggled on for hundreds more years. The Early Centuries covers Constantine the Great to the beginnings of the Holy Roman Empire in the West, and chronicles the growth of one of the worlds greatest cities, Constantinople, as well as the ever shifting borders of the slowly decaying empire. The religious splinters that led up to the Schism between East and West are covered, as well as the rise of Islam, and Byzantium's dynamic role in holding back the armies of Arabia. Truly an epic read if you are interested in this time period, Norwich's book is factual as well as entertaining, and this book is a must read for history buffs everywhere.

[Antonio Fanelli · Rating 5 out of 5]

La magnificenza, nella bellezza e nell'orrore, dell'Impero Romano d'Oriente non cessa di affascinarmi. La cultura, la forza, gli intrighi, la violenza, la religiosità, la teologia ... nulla è piccolo qui.

[Silash Ruparell · Rating 5 out of 5]

This review also appears on my blog www.silashruparell.com

My one liner: Fratricide, Patricide, Matricide, Infanticide, Blood, Guts, Gore, Pillage, Murder, Incest, Intrigue, Betrayal, Incompetence, Brilliance, Genius, Aggression, Passion, Fervour, Docility, Stupidity, Hubris. In other words the first five hundred years of the Byzantine Empire as described by John Julius Norwich in this classic account.

“After over half a century of contact with the Romans, his people had become perhaps one degree less bestial than at their first arrival; but the vast majority still lived and slept in the open, disdaining all agriculture and even cooked foods – though they would often soften raw meat by putting it between their thighs and their horses’ flanks as they rode. For clothing they favoured tunics made, rather surprisingly, from the skins of fieldmice, crudely stitched together; this they wore continuously, without ever removing them, until they dropped off of their own accord. And as they had always done, they still practically lived on their horses, eating, trading, holding their councils, even sleeping in the saddle.”

The Huns were a savage tribe which smashed their way out of the Central Asian steppes around 376AD. Attila the Hun, “the scourge of God”, led a series of attacks on the Byzantine Empire and built up a vast dominion stretching from Constantinople to the Balkans in the East to Italy and France in the West. He came within a whisker of invading Rome itself.

The Hun invasion is just one example of the incursions and travails that beset the Byzantine Empire during the period covered in this book, 300 to 800AD.
This colourful account by John Julius Norwich tells the story of the early Byzantine Empire, established by Emperor Constantine I (“Constantine the Great”) in 311 AD in the new city of Constantinople on the banks of the River Bosphorus. The New Rome.

Whilst the Pope, and hence the religious centre, of the Roman Empire continued to be seated in Rome, the political centre had now gravitated towards the East.

It was not a smooth and unambiguous transition, and often there were
Co-Emperors, one for Byzantium and one for the West of the Roman Empire.

However, throughout the period of this volume, there was one inalienable and unargued article of faith for every Byzantine (and from which they drew strength of unity in times of turmoil), namely that the Emperor (or Co-Emperor) was the sole Vice-Gerent of God on earth. This volume ends with the shattering of that practice in the most remarkable way in the year 800AD. Pope Leo III produces a document (proved to be fraudulent only several centuries later) entitled the “Donation of Constantine”, pursuant to which Constantine the Great had allegedly, 500 years earlier, “retired” to the “province” of Byzantium, having bestowed on the Pope the right to confer the title of Emperor.

By this document the Frankish ruler Charles (“Charlemagne”) was crowned
Emperor by Pope Leo and despatched to Byzantium to replace the supposed Empress Irene whose reign over Byzantium had been an economic and political
disaster.

Of course, the transition was helped by another factor: “That the Empress was notorious for having blinded and murdered her own son was, in the minds of both Leo and Charles, immaterial: it was enough that she was a woman. The female sex was known to be incapable of governing, and by the old Salic tradition was debarred from doing so.”

In between the bookends of Constantine the Great and Charlemagne, we read of a fascinating period of Christian history. Of Emperors who were disastrous. Of others who ruled Byzantium with skill, care and competence.

For example Heraclius came to the throne in 610 AD. He introduced a new structure into the eastern side of Byzantium, organising it along military
lines:
- The part of Asia Minor (the northeast coastline running from Selifke in the Mediterranean to Rize on the Black Sea) which had recently been recaptured from the Persians was divided into four “Themes”, or regions. The choice of word was significant, because tema was the Greek word for a division of troops, thus underlining the warlike division of the region.
- Each tema was put under the governorship of a“strategos”, or military governor.
- A reserve army was maintained by providing potential soldiers with inalienable grants of land, in return for hereditary military service if called up.
- The net result was that Heraclius did not have to rely on ad hoc recruiting or on doing deals with dodgy barbarians in order to raise an army.

On the economic front he fixed the parlous fiscal position of the Imperial economy through:
- Taxation and government borrowing
- Restitution from supporters of the previous corrupt regime
- Subsidies from “friends and family” in Africa
- Most importantly however, he persuaded Patriarch Sergius, the Archbishop of Constantinople, to declare that the coming war would be a religious war. Hence all of the Church assets and treasure would be at the disposal of the Emperor.

Leadership 101 for aspiring modern warmongerer.

You will need to read the book to find out what became of Heraclius.

Every Emperor was confronted by tribes trying to nick territory. The Gauls and Franks perennially switching their loyalties to and from Rome. The Lombards (from modern Germany and Austria) settling in Northern Italy. The Slavs trying to take the Balkans. The Goths, the Vandals and Huns having to be bought off or fought off.

But, there are two stand-out foes of Byzantine Christendom over this period.

First, the Persian Empire, whose rulers always seemed to have the knack for knowing when they had the upper hand. As an example, in 359AD Emperor Constantius II receives a letter from the Persian King:

“Shapur, King of Kings, brother of the Sun and the Moon, sends salutation...

Your own authors are witness that the entire territory within the river Strymon and the borders of Macedon was once held by my forefathers; were I to require you to restore all of this, it would not ill-become me...but because I take delight in moderation I shall be content to receive Mesopotamia and Armenia which were fraudulently extorted from my grandfather. I give you warning that if my ambassador returns empty-handed, I shall take the field against you, with all my armies, as soon as the winter is past.”

I guess a lawyer would call that a Letter Before Action.

And of course the other formidable challenge to Byzantium was the rise of Islam.

In 633 AD, shortly after the foundation of the religion, it suddenly “burst out of Arabia.” First Damascus, then Jerusalem. Next, the whole of Syria. Egypt and
Armenia fell within the decade. The whole Persian Empire was subsumed within 20 years. And then Afghanistan and Punjab within another 10 years.
To the West, North Africa and Spain. Across the Pyrenees and finally checked
at the banks of the Loire.

The rest, as they say, is history.

The various Emperors acceded and reigned using diverse styles of governance and deployed some interesting procedural instruments.

The Emperor Maurice, though fundamentally a good man, faced financial
pressures as a result of the extravagance and incompetence of his predecessor. Around 602AD he introduced austerity measures, but went too far, at one point cutting military rations by 25%, refusing to ransom 12,000 captives of the Avars (leading to them being put to death), and decreeing that the army should not return to base for winter but should sit it out in inhospitable territory beyond the Danube. Eventually he become so unpopular that he took the decision to flee to Persia (with whose king he had previously concluded a truce), taking his family with him.

His successor Phocas, embarked on a brutal purge of all his enemies.

“Debauched, drunk, and almost pathologically cruel, he loved, we are told, nothing so much as the sight of blood..; it was Phocas who introduced the gallows and the rack, the bindings and mutilation which were to cast a sinister shadow over the centuries to come.”

First, Phocas despatched troops to Asia and killed Maurice and family. Then he exterminated his own brother and nephew. Plus a whole bunch of military men. He even managed to kill Narses, his best general in the East. Unsurprisingly, the Persians took their chance, invaded, and took
significant chunks of territory, including Mesopotamia, Syria, Armenia,
Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, and Galatia.

Other examples abound.

Julian the Apostate, who eventually became Emperor in 361 AD, had to bide his time (indeed he didn’t really have imperial designs, and in fact was a sort of travelling scholar, and by all accounts a little bit of a geek).

His cousin Constantius II preceded him as Emperor. He had had Julian’s father and stepbrother killed when Julian was a young child. Constantius made the error of elevating Julian, appointing him as the Caesar of Gaul. Julian must have had a festering hatred for Constantius II. He bided his time, and then led an army against Constantius.

This book has some other useful features. The tables of lineages, emperors and family trees, the maps and illustration all add to understanding. Moreover there is a tourist guide, providing a list of the Byzantine monuments still surviving in Istanbul today.

I agree with the author in his Introduction that Byzantium is an era of history under-taught in schools, yet it has more than enough material to capture the imagination of a schoolchild.

The narrative of this book is tight, so it leads you swiftly from one reign to another quite seamlessly.

And that perhaps, is a clue to the central message of the book.

Dynasties come and go. Some leaders are good people, some are bad, most a bit of both. They are able to wield huge power. And yet they are all merely human beings powerless against the passage of time and events.

[Jorge Delarco Martin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un recorrido por casi 500 años de historia del Imperio Romano del Este. Tenía un desconocimiento bastante amplio sobre el tema, a parte de saber algunos nombres y hazañas por allí y por allá, de hecho lo sigo teniendo y desde luego que me gustaría indagar más.

Es especialmente interesante como la religión tenía una importancia social espectacular, pero muy diferente a la que tenía en el Oeste. Tanto los emperadores como la gente de a pie se volvían locos por la teología causando más de una revuelta y bastantes problemas. También es interesante como poco a poco el antiguo espíritu romano se va diluyendo hasta que prevalecen los valores griegos, la llegada del Islam sacude al Imperio y estoy deseando ver cómo se desarrollan los conflictos hasta que en 1453 los otomanos toman Constantinopla.

Al libro le pongo 4 estrellas porque aunque haya aprendido bastante es un plastón bastante curioso, me ha costado bastante acabarlo, quizá que la edición que me leí fuera en inglés no ha ayudado mucho en esto. Me leeré el segundo libro, pero me tengo que mentalizar para ello.

[Gareth Russell · Rating 5 out of 5]

A truly extraordinary history of how Rome became Byzantium. The rise of the Christian Empire of the East, beginning with Constantine the Great and ending its narrative with the Empress Irene’s reign, is beautifully and brilliantly told by one of the great historical writers of the past century. I am sincerely in awe of Lord Norwich’s skill, in narrating a part of history which is little known to modern readers. It is one of the finest historical works I’ve read recently; balancing art with accuracy, superbly.

[Tristan Saucedo · Rating 3 out of 5]

A little flatter (and longer - but that's on me I knew it was 400 pages on the first 1/3 of the Byzantine Empire) than I wanted :( but not bad. It does show its age a bit in writing style.

[晓木曰兮历史系 Chinese · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Byzantine Empire is the oldest empire in European history, although people often think of Byzantium as conspiracy and murder. The Byzantine Empire is also known as the Eastern Roman Empire. Before the death of the Roman Emperor Theodosius I in 395 AD, he divided the eastern and western parts of the empire with his two sons-Arcadius, who was less than eighteen years old, and Horno, who was only ten years old. Rius inherited, and from then on the Roman Empire was divided into East and West Empires, and was no longer unified.

The division of the Roman Empire originated earlier. Emperor Diocletian thought that the empire was too large, the enemies were too scattered, and the lines of communication were too long to be ruled by a single monarch. Therefore, he shared the throne with his old comrade Maximian and divided the rule. Stuff. Then, Diocletian appointed two "Caesars", one to manage the Balkans and the other to manage Gaul. The Gaul administrator, "The Pale" Constantius, was the father of Constantine the Great.

This book starts with Diocletian’s partition. On the one hand, it makes people understand that even if the Byzantine Empire eventually became an Eastern Empire, its origin is still the Roman Empire. On the other hand, it shows that the Roman Empire has This precedent for division and rule became one of the important reasons for the complete division of the Eastern and Western Roman Empire.

Unlike China, which was centered on the interior, the entire territory of the Roman Empire was based on the Mediterranean Sea. In essence, the Roman Empire was a maritime empire, and most of the people of the Roman Empire were also maritime nations. Under the influence of ancient Greece, ancient Rome rapidly expanded from a city-state to a republic in the later period. Octavian entered the era of the Roman Empire after he called it "Augustus". The Roman Empire in its heyday controlled approximately 5 million square kilometers of land, making the Mediterranean Sea its own inner sea.

Orthodox vs. Arius
Different from the later East and West Rome, the Roman Empire was a polytheistic country, and people enjoyed the freedom to practice various religions. Constantine the Great, who was the first to convert to Christianity, probably could not have predicted. The religion in which he was baptized at his deathbed laid a huge hidden danger for the glorious Roman Empire. Constantine I not only played a great role in the religion of the empire, but also determined the capital of the Roman Empire and even the Byzantine Empire-Constantinople named after him.

A religion is often divided into different factions based on the understanding of different people, and Christianity cannot avoid this fate. The so-called "Orthodox" believe that the priest himself is only an agent of Christ, and their moral conduct will not affect the effectiveness of their sacraments. The Christian faction named after its leader Arian denied "the immortality of Jesus Christ and its essential unity with the Holy Father, but believes that Jesus was created by God and will become a tool of world salvation at a certain time."

People can tolerate various religions, but cannot tolerate heresy, but the Arianism quickly flourished. The author described the most important conference in the history of Christianity in chapter two—the Council of Nicene (325 AD)—although such conferences will be held several times in subsequent centuries. On the surface, the orthodox faction that insisted on the "oneness of the father and son" won the victory. Arius and his faithful followers were expelled and exiled, but in fact the Arius faction was not greatly affected. The schizophrenia of the Eastern and Western Roman Empire thus kicked off.

Inheritance
The succession system of the Roman emperor was not the same as in ancient China, which stipulated that the father died and the son succeeded, and there was a clear eldest son system. Theoretically speaking, the emperor of the Roman Empire was elected, and there was no fixed inheritance system. In the early days, it could basically be summarized as an adopted inheritance system. When the Roman Empire was divided into two, the Eastern Roman Empire officially opened the hereditary throne, but there was still no clear inheritance system.

Starting from the death of Theodosius I in 395 AD, the Ottoman Sultan Muhammad II led an army into Constantinople in 1453 as the end point. During this thousand years, the Eastern Roman Empire has gone through 12 dynasties, totaling 93 Emperor. Often the emperor designated his son as Caesar and made him his heir. If the emperor has no children, then his brothers, nephews, sisters, daughters, son-in-laws, parents, parents-in-laws, grandsons and spouses all have the right to inherit the throne, and even the queen’s lover inherits the throne.

Without a clear inheritance system, there are often incidents of family smashing the wall. And when dissatisfied with the emperor's governance, a coup d'etat will also occur. As a result, the emperors of the Byzantine Empire were diverse, from different races and classes, and with different educational levels. The overthrown emperor was often executed, castrated, or stabbed blind.

The dynasty changed, the throne changed, and the emperors, patriarchs, generals, and inner court chiefs who appeared in the political history of Byzantium for millennia have all stepped onto the political stage. What's rare is that the author sorted out the events of these characters so clearly that people would not scratch their heads when they see all kinds of similar names. The author's pen and ink distribution is extremely even, even if Justinian the Great played an important role in the Eastern Roman Empire, he did not particularly give more pen and ink.

Internal and external troubles
The demise of Western Rome must have dealt a great blow to Eastern Rome, and it also gave Eastern Rome a chance to reunify the Roman Empire. However, the unstable succession system of the Eastern Roman Empire often caused internal consumption of the empire. Like all imperial powers, the entire political system was complicated and lacked transparency. "Byzantine court conspiracy" is often so ironic, "Byzantine power game" is more reminiscent of HBO's drama "Game of Thrones."

Although the Roman Empire has been divided, the Eastern Roman Empire still faces many opponents: the powerful Persians, the barbaric Huns, the Goths, Arabs, Saracens, Bolgars, Rus...Byzantium The geographical location and vast territory of the empire are destined to not have too many natural geographical barriers and numerous enemies. The enemies seemed to be like tides, one wave after another, the Byzantine Empire was able to persist for more than a thousand years, probably inseparable from the strong walls of Constantinople, although they were eventually wiped out by the Turks from the East.

"Byzantine Trilogy" is not an academic work, but a popular book for the general public. In an imperial country that has existed for more than a thousand years, three books of more than 500 pages can only give readers a first glimpse of the power transformation of the Eastern Roman Empire, the conflict of religions, and the cruelty of war. For readers who don't know the past and present of Byzantium, it is a good introductory book.

[Christopher · Rating 3 out of 5]

The English history and travel writer John Julius Cooper, 2nd Viscount Norwich has long had a thing for the East. With Reresby Sitwell he wrote an introduction to the world of Mount Athos and subsequently, over three large volumes, produced a large history of Byzantium for popular audiences. BYZANTIUM: The Early Centuries is the first volume, going from the rise of St Constantine the Great in the early fourth century to the end of the Empress Irene's era in 802. I had mixed reactions to it.

When it comes to political history, i.e. who reigned when and who fought who, Norwich's history is quite detailed. Many palace intrigues are spicily recounted, and various hypotheses for some of the more mysterious turns of fate are collected. However, beyond the political history there is no real coverage of Byzantium culture. As other reviews have already pointed out, the goings-on of the elite are usually quite distant from the day to day life of the masses. There's no discussion of the developments of the arts or the flux of the economy. Some discussion of Byzantine culture can be had from Joan Mervyn Hussey's THE BYZANTINE WORLD, but she tries to pack an entire millennium in just a few pages.

While Norwich enjoys the culture of Eastern Christianity, he clearly is not faithful to the Eastern Orthodox Church. Quite often he questions the actions of rulers that the Church has glorified as saints, suggests that the outcome of the Ecumenical Councils was random, and insinuates that certain relics are fakes. I should think that Orthodox Christians are a fairly large market for a popular history of Byzantium, but they regrettably still await a book that sticks to Church teaching.

Since three full volumes of just political history is quite tedious, I'd recommend reading Norwich's abridgement A SHORT HISTORY OF BYZANTIUM instead.

[Barry · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a finely told history of the early part of the Byzantine Empire. With colorful stories, in depth research, and a seeming fairness, Mr. Norwich has done justice to the history of Byzantium. Though the history is convoluted and filled with scores of names and important details, there is an order here that makes the story easy enough to follow. Along the journey fascinating anecdotes and personalities emerge, along with occasional analysis which seems even-handed and balanced in an effort to tell it like it really was.

At times the thread of the story became hard to discern with the jumble of places and people that blend together in one's mind. This is not the fault of Mr. Norwich, though it would have been nice to have him step back periodically to give an overview of the key points of that segment of the history, or to let us know what was going on in the big picture at that time. Some of the most refreshing and interesting parts of the book are when Mr. Norwich gives a brief sketch of Europe, Africa, or the Middle East. These contrasts help the reader better fit the history of Byzantium in with the world at large.

Though the book would benefit from more of these breaks, Byzantium: The Early Centuries is still a very good book and well worth the read.

[Peyton · Rating 3 out of 5]

I don't usually write serious reviews, but I do want to explain my rating here since the book seems to be really well-regarded. To me, it seemed very focused on military and political history, almost exclusively discussing the succession of leaders and changes of the territory of the empire (which I'm sure is in part because it's an older book and that kind of history was more in vogue when it was written.) The book is very well-written, but the emphasis on only these areas of Byzantine history seemed reductive to me and doesn't really align with my own interests, so on a personal level, it wasn't as compelling as I'd hoped. If you're primarily interested in that type of history, though, I do recommend it!

[Jby · Rating 3 out of 5]

JJ Norwich has probably forgotten more about Byzantium than half the world knows. Very intersting, but a bit tedious. This history is very (too?) centered on the byzantine emperors,their court and their actions. IMO the wider context is missing too often.