Byzantium: The Apogee

A History of Byzantium #2

by John Julius Norwich

Volume 2 of the series. With 32 pages of illustrations, and 7 maps.

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

428 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1991

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

[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 е 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 шлифова 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 светска. Византия удържа приливните вълни на нововъзникналия 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 суверенитет - от Венецианския флот.

Истинският край на империята не идва от изток и селджукскире 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 и 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 възприятие, 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. от н.е., когато започва този конкретен отрязък. Така че се иска четене с разбиране и мислене. Но най-вече четене.

[Tony · Rating 3 out of 5]

Like the first volume of Norwich's Byzantium trilogy, The Apogee provides a fast paced account of several centuries in the life of the empire. Unfortunately, the period covered in this installment, 800-1080, is not as interesting as Constantinople's founding and early years. In fact, much of the book covers nothing more than court intrigue and countless imperial successions. It is easy to see why Byzantium's emperors, unlike those of the earlier Western Empire, have been largely forgotten.

[Philip Lee · Rating 4 out of 5]

On the last page of his short introduction to this book - the second of his three volume history of the empire – Lord Norwich apologises thus, “... I make no claim to academic rigour. I knew little about Byzantium when I began writing about it and shall doubtless have forgotten a good deal of what I have written soon after I come to the close.” Reading his three books in sequence as I am, this admission of the author's is not quite so disconcerting as it may seem. The quantity of characters (emperors, empresses, caliphs, kings, queens & consorts; popes, patriarchs, bishops & monks of note - eg Cyril of the Cyrillic script; generals, admirals, ministers of state and chroniclers) is staggering. I doubt if even rigorous academics are experts on the whole period (spanning more than a thousand years). And Norwich often pays tribute to those he has studied and whose opinions he values, notably Sir Stephen Runciman. The difficulty the writer faces, with a popular readership in mind, has been (as it was in the first volume) to avoid his chronicle becoming too much of a list.

But by deconstructing his own narrative, he's also warning us that there is of necessity too much detail here. And that even though this is not an academic study, general readers will have to do some filling in themselves. It is as though Game of Thrones turned out to be no stranger than fact, hardly as long, and not so very nasty at all in comparison with this blood thirsty study of ruthless ambition vs. treachery.

I am yet to get round to reading Gibbon's account of the Eastern Roman Empire (so I don't know how much it deals with Byzantium), but decline and fall is not what happens here. The surprise is how Byzantium endures, then goes from strength to strength. Just when it appears to be tottering on the brink of destruction by the Saladins, by the Viking led Russians, or by its own insurgents, along comes an emperor like Basil II and boy does the empire strike back.

Other surprises include the return of Iconoclasm. I know this was dealt with extensively in vol 1, but by the ninth century it still hasn't gone away. That a civilisation synonymous with icons spent some much time and effort destroying its own religious artwork is mind boggling. This puritan streak is not the work of a couple of revolutions (like in sixteenth and seventeenth century England), but a recurring compulsion that drives emperors and patriarchs alike.

The urge to destroy is also turned on living beings as well as those represented in effigy. Noses and ears are still being lopped off, tongues pulled out; hair is shaved from the heads of men and women; and former emperors are paraded through the streets sat backwards upon donkeys. One patriarch was banished to a monastery for years before making his return to office; as was an empress. You couldn't write these stories. It makes accounts of the Borgias or the Medicis read like second rate soap opera treatments. I've heard that George R. R. Martin (writer of Game of Thrones) raked through the English Wars of the Roses for inspiration. No doubt one day this Eastern version of the Roman Empire will spawn some gigantic Netflix folly. Gladiators? No need for such spectacle when a common shipwright could make his bid for the imperial throne, when a fourteen year old jockey could become patriarch, or when a tavern dancing girl could marry a prince and become empress. The violence Byzantium did was not restricted to people or objects. Christianity itself was torn to shreds in the massacre of towns and cities, and if Jesus ever did weep it was standing in “God's holy fire” ie in the Greek fire turned on Byzantium's enemies.

Towards the end of this second volume, Norwich (surely tongue in cheek by now) reminds us that the “Roman Empire of the East had been in existence for little more than seven hundred years...” when on the verge of the Great Schism it once again passes from a great height to a very sorry depth. The split with Rome had long been a reality but while an obscure Norman Duke was fighting his nephew for the throne of a small island off the northern coast of Europe, much bigger fish were being fried in the Eastern Mediterranean. The Empire having passed its Apogee – in the safe hands of Basil II – and was being tossed around in a game of Find The Lady (ie, marry the Empress – his sister). A suitable point for the author to break off – having lost the decisive battle of Manazgirt (against the Selçuk Turks) – with a humiliating treaty. The stage, one can only assume, is set for the disasters of The Crusades in vol. 3.

[Scipio Africanus · Rating 5 out of 5]

Manzikert breaks my fuckin heart like it was yesterday. This series of books on Byzantium is so good.

[Andrew Reece · Rating 5 out of 5]

John Julius Norwich Chronicles The Apogee Of Byzantine Supremacy Over Asia Minor & The Mediterranean, During The Period Ranging From 800-1081 A.D.

Following the reign of the Greek empress Irene in 802 AD, Byzantium entered a period of supremacy which can be considered the apex of its political & military power, during the historical period ranging approximately from 867-1025. This unprecedented period of growth & prosperity came about in large part due to the administrative & military efforts of intelligent, ambitious, & politically experienced rulers such as Basil I the Macedonian, Romanus I Lecapenus, & John I Tzimisces, all of whose accomplishments at the negotiating table & on the battlefield did much to increase Greek power, prestige, & influence in the eastern Mediterranean region. After the senseless destruction of thousands of religious artifacts by the first iconoclast emperors, Leo III the Isaurian, & his son, Constantine V 'Copronymus', Byzantium's reputation as a center for learning & the arts had suffered dramatically, & it was due to the wisdom of the philosophically oriented, enlightened emperors, Leo VI the Wise & Constantine VII 'Porphyrogenitus', the Scholar Emperor, that this unfortunate trend was somewhat reversed, though the relics themselves were irreplaceable. The period covered by John Julius Norwich in volume two of his history of the Byzantine empire, Byzantium: The Apogee, spans some two hundred eighty-one years, from the ascent of the Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne in 800 until the abdication of the Eastern emperor Nicephoras III Botaneiates, which preceded the rise of Alexius Comnenus in 1081.

This cloth-bound, hardcover edition of John Julius Norwich's Byzantium: The Apogee is volume two in his Byzantium trilogy, which chronicles between three volumes over 1130 years of the history of the Byzantine empire from its inception in the Age of Constantine, to its tragic fall during the reign of Constantine XI Dragaš Palaeologus in 1453. The book is manufactured by the London-based Folio Society, an upper tier publisher which specializes in high quality, collector's editions of books from all literary genres. This edition is printed on caxton-wove paper & features 46 exclusive full-color photographs of Byzantine art & architecture. Each entry in the Folio edition of the trilogy features its own unique cover design, & this volume's cover art was inspired by an 8th-9th century silk motif of winged riders from a museum in Berlin, Germany.

In the short introduction, Norwich provides some general background on the historical era & flow of events in his narrative, & briefly discusses the period's smaller range of years & comparative richness of sources when held next to the first entry. "The present volume covers a shorter period than the first: rather less than three centuries as opposed to rather more than five. This is partly because, as always throughout history, there is an acceleration in the march of events: ever greater numbers of characters make their appearance on the scene & the whole canvas of the Eastern Mediterranean becomes, in consequence, increasingly overcrowded. The principal reason, however, lies in the fact that the contemporary authorities for this second period are a good deal more informative. For the first centuries of the Byzantine era the surviving records are - as I pointed out in my earlier introduction - quite pitifully thin, & moreover, as likely as not to contradict one another...Now, as the pace increases & the story builds up its own momentum, the chroniclers begin to proliferate & to enliven their accounts more frequently with portraits, descriptions & anecdotes...For the rest, thanks to such writers as Liudprand of Cremona, St Theophanes & his continuators, George Cedrenus, John Scylitzes & above all the odious but ever-fascinating Michael Psellus, we can enjoy an incomparably more colourful picture of life in the Imperial Palace of Byzantium in the early middle ages than we can of any other court in Europe."

He also speaks to the general goals he hoped to achieve in composing this second entry in the trilogy -- "From the outset my only object has been to provide the interested non-specialist with the sort of bird's eye view of Byzantine history that I myself wanted when I first fell under the spell of the Eastern Mediterranean. The measure of my success must remain an open question: even in this relatively modest undertaking there is still the best part of four centuries to go. But we have now comfortably passed the point of no return; I, at least am enjoying myself; & if I can persuade other kindred spirits to share my enjoyment I shall be happy indeed." The three volumes in the Byzantium trilogy were originally published by Viking Penguin in Great Britain in 1988, 1991 & 1995.

In Chapter 1, Krum: 800-814, Norwich discusses the circumstances leading to the rise of the Bulgar chieftain, Khan Krum, which occurred during the reign of the emperor Nicephorus I. Nicephorus was necessitated to levy an array of new taxes to restore the Byzantine treasury following the costly reign of Empress Irene, & he also undertook a resettlement programme to repopulate the Greek Peloponnese region similar to the one initiated during the first reign of Justinian II to reinforce Asia Minor from the threat of Saracen invasion, which can be read about in the first volume, Byzantium: The Early Centuries. His reign came to an end in 811, however, while leading an expedition accompanied by his son, Stauracius, against Krum in which he navigated his army into a narrow defile at where historians believe to be the Pass of Verbitza, & Nicephorus dies during the fighting, while his son is mortally wounded. His successor is Michael Rhangabe, who brings to fruition his predecessor's Pax Nicephori, a peace treaty with the Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne which officially acknowledged & recognized the rule of both emperors, along with land cessions of Venice & Istria to the Eastern Roman empire.

After a series of victories in Thrace, the Bulgar Khan, Krum, acquires a considerable amount of war spoils, including a cache of the closely-guarded mixture known as Greek fire, & at Versinicia, the warlord finally comes face to face with an imperial army led by the emperor Michael I Rhangabe himself & his two lieutenants, John Aplakes & Leo the Armenian, but the Byzantine army is defeated, with the most likely explanation being that Michael is betrayed on the battlefield by his own commanders. He must subsequently abdicate his position to Leo, who becomes the next Byzantine emperor, Leo V. The author does such a stellar job of moving the narrative along smoothly, everything is so well-presented that the reader at times cannot help but become swept up in the dramatic events as they unfold in Norwich's signature eloquent writing style. Leo then dispatches an urgent emissary to Krum, requesting that he attend a meeting to broker a truce, but this ostensible diplomatic entente is nothing more than a stratagem intended to catch Krum unawares, & the Khan realizes this & escapes just in the nick of time, only to then undertake a grim revenge, raiding large swaths of the Constantinopolitan suburbs & several towns in Byzantine Bulgaria on his way back to his homeland. Krum begins assembling a second army, but on 14 April 814, he is stricken by a sudden illness & dies, & the Byzantines are thus spared the remainder of his wrath.

The revival of the Byzantine practice of outlawing priceless religious artwork & relics is the primary area of focus in Chapter 2, The Return of Iconoclasm: 814-829, & it begins in the summer of 814, with the emperor Leo V initiating the appointment of a committee to investigate a possible return to iconoclastic edicts. After the destructive reigns of Byzantium's first iconoclast emperors, Leo III & his son, Constantine V, there was a short succession of iconodule rulers, most prominently the Greek empress, Irene, who attempted to reverse the tide, with mixed results. Iconodulism is the opposite of iconoclasm, & it is loosely defined as the practice of venerating & defending religious icons for devotional use. The two ecclesiastics delegated by Leo for the leadership of this commission were John the Grammarian & Anthony, Bishop of Syllaeum, & after a period of six months the men made their findings known, culminating in the General Synod of Easter 815, which once again formally forbade the unsanctioned production of religious icons by the Orthodox Church. The author provides an excerpt from the original text of the findings & judgment of the clerical committee which assist in illustrating for the reader just how serious these matters were perceived in Byzantine religious culture.

Also canvassed in this chapter is the conspiracy to usurp the emperor Leo V by his erstwhile companion, Michael, who, along with several highly placed officials, plots to acquire the throne for himself, but the scheme is uncovered & the would-be supplanter is thrown into gaol to await his fate. However, he has assistance from inside the prison, & in a dramatic chain of events, he is sprung free & with the help of his partisans actually overthrows his former liege lord, becoming the next emperor of Byzantium, Michael II of the Amorian dynasty. Norwich alerts the reader to a change in the narrative style of his sources at this point in his chronicle, as the extant writings for this period switch from the monk Theophanes to the mysterious writer known only as 'The Continuator'. He provides an endearing description of this enigmatic character in the following passage -- "We may suspect him of occasionally elaborating his account with more than a touch of artistic license, & are probably right to do so - particularly since the later compilation dated from the middle of the tenth century, well over a hundred years after the events here described; but he certainly knows how to tell a story, & natural storytellers are all too rare in medieval history. In all essentials, we have no reason to doubt his reliability; & even for the rest, so long as we hold an occasional pinch of salt at the ready, there is no reason not to enjoy him." The author will periodically pause his narrative to provide his reader with further information on sources, events, & writers in a seamless fashion which speaks to his undeniably exceptional abilities as an historian & as a writer.

Among the subjects discussed in Chapter 5, Of Patriarchs & Plots: 857-866 & Chapter 6, Double Murder: 866-867, are three of the era's most prominent men of learning - Photius the Patriarch, Cyril of Thessalonica, & Leo the Philosopher (not to be confused with the Byzantine emperor, Leo the Wise). Photius the Patriarch was a close associate of Bardas, the uncle of the emperor Michael III, & he was a renowned man of learning, but the manner in which he came to power was a topic of much contention between the Christian & Orthodox Churches, & led to what became known as the Photian schism. Cyril of Thessalonica developed his own alphabet while working as a missionary aiding in the spread of Christianity to the Moravia region in Eastern Europe, & was later revered as a saint alongside his brother Methodius. After the esteemed instructor Leo the Philosopher achieves fame when a student of his unwillingly journeys to Baghdad as a prisoner of war & made a very positive impression on the Abbasid Caliph Mamun, Leo's teaching career skyrockets, & the emperor Theophilius awards him a commission to give lectures at the Church of the Forty Martyrs in Constantinople.

The emperor Basil I of the Macedonian line proved to be an effective leader in many arenas for the Byzantines, successfully winning major conquests in Asia Minor fighting against the Saracens & Paulicians, & despite the rivalry he shared with the Western emperor Louis the Pious he managed to regain suzerainty of South Italy, a region which was highly sought after by both rulers. Basil's reign also saw extensive missionary work in many regions of the Baltic Peninsula, & with the scholar Photius's assistance he oversaw completion of several influential legal treatises, among them the Procheiron, which is a collection of the most highly utilized governmental legislations, & the Epanagoge, an expanded version of the first work but with additional information outlining the duties of the Byzantine Emperor & Patriarch. All of this material is covered in Chapter 7, Basil the Macedonian: 867-886.

Leo VI the Wise's most enduring legacies to Byzantine society were derived from his considerable intellect & formidable erudition; he was one of the empire's famous enlightened rulers whose contributions to imperial law were second only to those of Justinian the Great. Leo worked alongside Symbatius, his protospatharius (a rank in the Byzantine imperial service), & together they continued the revisions & recodifications to Byzantine law began during the reign of Leo's father & predecessor, Basil I. Among their most notable written works is a six-volume, sixty-book set known as the Basilica, a morality-themed reorganization & improvement upon Justinian's extensive law manuals of the sixth century, as well as the Novels, a series of 113 edicts that revised & updated existing laws & ordinances to reflect the changes in the social landscape that occurred in the years since the laws had first been published, also consolidating power in the person of the emperor by scaling back the powers of the Curia & Senate. Norwich also focuses on Leo's four separate marriages & the accompanying changes to the nuptial laws that had to be enacted in order to accommodate the emperor's wishes, despite his people's general disapproval of them. Leo VI's reign is the primary topic of discussion in Chapter 8, Leo the Wise: 886-912.

Romanus I Lecapenus first came to power in 919 by nominating himself the guardian of the emperor Constantine VII 'Porphyrogenitus', who was still in his minority, & assuming the title of basileopater, an official title which first came into use during the reigns of Basil I & Leo VI, & his family had first achieved promience in the Battle of Tephriké when his father, Theophylact, saved the life of the emperor Basil I during the fighting. The emperor Romanus I Lecapenus is primarily discussed in Chapter 9, The Rise of Romanus: 912-920, & Chapter 10, The Gentle Usurper: 920-948. Romanus was a gifted tactician & experienced general who served the empire first as strategos (provincial governor) of the theme of Samia, which was followed by a promotion in 912 to the rank of drungarius (high admiral). Despite his usurpation of the throne, his reign was on the whole moderately peaceful, & he proved himself a capable, if not brilliant, administrator who left the empire in a better state than he had found it.

Known as the Scholar Emperor, Constantine VII 'Porphyrogenitus' was born the only child of Leo VI the Wise's fourth & final marriage to Zoe Carbonospina, a union that Leo was only able to have legitimized after much diplomatic wrangling, negotiating & bargaining with the Orthodox & Christian Churches. His sobriquet, 'porphyrogenitus', means 'born in the purple', which refers to the fact he was born in the sacred imperial purple chamber in Constantinople's Great Palace. Constantine possessed a lifelong adoration for the written word, & has left history with more extant writings than any Byzantine emperor, but his two primary literary works are the De Ceremoniis Aulae Byzantinae, a compendium of imperial rituals & ceremonial traditions, & another treatise now referred to as De Administrando Imperio, which is a sort of ruler's manual Constantine wrote for his son Romanus II to more effectively establish amicable relations with the numerous barbarian tribes that surrounded the empire on all sides. But this remarkable ruler was much more than merely a scholar, he was also an effective politician & administrator who made wise personnel decisions & seemed to have a knack for choosing the right man for the job. He was also an esteemed patron of the arts who welcomed skilled artisans from all fields, a bibliophile, & even a talented painter. Constantine VII's reign proved to be the genesis for an unparalleled period of Byzantine artistic & cultural growth which became known as the Macedonian Renaissance. The majority of Constantine VII's 46-year reign as well as that of his son, Romanus II, which lasted a mere 4 years, from 959-963, are discussed in Chapter 11, The Scholar Emperor: 945-963.

The Battle of Manzikert was the one of the most catastrophic tactical defeats in the history of the Eastern Roman empire, & it resulted in the cession of huge swaths of land in eastern & northeastern Asia Minor to Alp Arslan & the Seljuk empire, & an enormous loss of imperial prestige due to the capture & ransom of the Byzantine emperor, Romanus IV Diogenes, occurring in the battle's aftermath. In many ways, Manzikert signified the beginning of the end for Byzantium, as the Seljuk Turkish forces were able to effectively dominate affairs on the continent & the empire would never be quite the same as it had been. Overall, John Julius Norwich's Byzantium: The Apogee is an exceptionally composed, non-stop thrill ride through the Byzantine empire's most prosperous historical period. Moreso than the first volume, the book showcases the larger-than-life personalities of the emperors themselves, providing an undeniably exciting narrative that builds upon the previous entry's plotline which managed to maintain this reviewer's interest the entire way through. There are plenty of noteworthy events to be found in Norwich's rich history, & the appearance of characters such as the Byzantine general George Maniakes & the various popes in power during the East-West Schism of 1054 should be familiar to readers of this remarkable historian's other books, such as The Normans in the South: 1016-1130. The final entry in the trilogy, Byzantium: The Decline & Fall chronicles the period from the ascension of Alexius Comnenus in 1081 to the final siege & capture of Constantinople by the Ottoman empire in 1453. Thank you so very much for reading, I hope you enjoyed the review!

[Yair Zumaeta Acero · Rating 5 out of 5]

Segunda entrega de la apoteósica trilogía sobre la historia del Imperio Bizantino escrita por el grandioso historiador y divulgador británico John Julius Norwich (y que por primera vez se edita en español gracias a los amigos de Atico de los Libros); donde asistiremos al período intermedio del imperio - poco más de 280 años - que van entre el reinado de la emperatriz Irene en Constantinopla y la coronación de Carlomagno en la navidad del año 800 e.c. como emperador de los romanos (título que ponía en cuestión la unidad de la cristiandad y la misma legitimidad de Bizancio como custodio de la tradición romana); hasta la desastrosa derrota bizantina en la batalla de Manzikert un aciago 26 de agosto de 1071.

Un volumen que abarca un periodo más corto que el primero, donde la marcha de los acontecimientos se acelera con el paso del tiempo: entran a escena más personajes, hay muchas más fuentes para cotejar eventos que ejemplifican a la perfección el pensamiento de la época y que a la vez, permiten narrar con muchos más matices los infinitos vericuetos de las intrigas y traiciones palaciegas que plagan la historia medieval bizantina como si se tratara de un delicioso thriller de fantasía medieval. Se narra con maestría el auge de un imperio, que viviría una época de expansión y prosperidad en el llamado "Renacimiento Macedónico", gracias a la formidable labor adelantada por la dinastía iniciada por el emperador Basilio I en el 867 e.c. y que alcanzaría su cénit a través de la vida y obra del gran Basilio II (el emperador bizantino que más tiempo reinó); sólo para dar inicio a una debacle que arrancó inmediatamente con la muerte de éste en el año 1025, que continuó durante los largos y poco edificantes reinados de Zoe, sus maridos, su hermana y su hijo adoptivo y con los pincelazos de decadencia otorgados por Miguel VI y -especialmente - el calamitoso reinado de Constantino X, quien según Norwich, "(...) fuera el gobernante más desastroso que jamás vistiera los coturnos púrpuras, donde el imperio alcanzó su punto más bajo".
Y para rematar la hecatombe, la Batalla de Manzikert fue el mayor desastre sufrido por el Imperio Bizantino en los siete siglos y medio de existencia para el momento en qué ocurrió, donde salieron a relucir todos los vicios y defectos con los que acarreaba el imperio: un ejército cobarde y mal preparado; generales y funcionarios parsimoniosos, ineptos y traidores; una figura imperial que ya no imponía respeto y una marea de enemigos simplemente abrumadora, que iba desde los turcos en Anatolia (ganadores de la batalla a las órdenes del sultán Alp Arslan); los pechenegos en Tracia y los normandos en Italia.... y a pesar de todo este sombrío panorama, al Imperio Bizantino aún le restaba un último amanecer brillante - uno que duraría casi 400 años más - y que lo haría protagonista de ese apasionante período conocido como "Las Cruzadas"; un segundo renacimiento que arrancaría de la mano de uno de los grandes emperadores bizantinos: el extraordinario Alejo I Comneno... pero eso es historia para el siguiente volumen.

Como siempre, una delicia absoluta leer la prosa sublime de Norwich relatando la historia de uno de los imperios más interesantes - y frecuentemente olvidados - del trasegar humano en esta tierra...

[Alexandru · Rating 4 out of 5]

The second volume of John Julius Norwich's history of Byzantium starts from the year 800 with the coronation of Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor and ends with the battle of Manzikert in 1071 followed by the ascension to the throne of Alexios Komnenos in 1081.

The history of the Byzantine Empire is an endless string of great disasters followed by recoveries and reconquests. The disasters are generally related to incompetent emperors or treacherous generals or courtiers. The number of emperors that are assassinated, blinded or deposed by their relatives or courtiers is astonishing. It seems that every other emperor is deposed in some horrific way and almost every emperor is faced with some sort of rebellion and civil war.

Powerful emperors such as Basil I the Macedonian, Nikephoros II Phokas, John I Tzimiskes or Basil II Bulgaroktonos expanded, recovered and consolidated the empire. However, their successors squandered all of the gains and almost led the empire to ruin.

As usual, Norwich wrote more of a popular history book rather than an academic book. He builds upon the work of great past historians such as Steven Runciman, Gibbons and JB Bury as well as ancient sources but also adds his own value judgements and humor into the mix. This makes the book highly readable and enjoyable but there is a certain level of subjectivity and lots of non-academic language.

All in all a worthy follow-up on the first part of the history of Byzantium. Next comes to fall and what a great fall it well be.

[Gareth Russell · Rating 5 out of 5]

John Julius Norwich is one of my favourite historical writers and his history of the zenith of the Byzantine empire is a reminder of his extraordinary skills.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Please see my review of Byzantium: The Early Centuries, which covers this volume as well.

Having read all three volumes of Byzantium by Norwich, I 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 very soon. The history of Byzantium links for the modern student of history the ancient age with the beginning of the modern.
15 likes

[Max Nemtsov · Rating 5 out of 5]

какое же отдохновенье - читать текст Нориджа, изложенный нормальным тоном, без идиотской аффектации и этого умильного сюсюканья. тут, можно сказать, подытоживается вся история Византии, хотя до ее конца еще далеко:

"Но счастье и гармония были редкими гостями а Византии..."

все это, как прекрасно известно, - из-за христианства. Норидж открытым текстом пишет, что империи лучше было б оставаться языческой, а Юлиан "Отступник" был прав. от христианства сплошное зло, а церковь всегда была жуткой блядью. (хотя на самом деле любовь к сослагательному наклонению его иногда подводит, но кто может ему запретить фантазировать на любимую тему, да?)

еще один анекдот эпохи - окончательный раскол восточной и западной церквей в 1054 году, нелепый и анекдотичный, как британский сатирический телесериал. тогда-то христианство окончательно доказало всю свою ничтожность, а после и посейчас только пробивает все новые и новые донья. сам автор говорит нам, что "из этой истории невозможно ничему научиться".

ну и с 860 года возникает еще одно зло, бессмысленно и беспощадное - русские варвары из волжского каганата под управлением этих своих норвегов, которым все никак на месте не сиделось, потому что уж очень у них, сука, холодно. модус вивенди и операнди у них был простой: грабить, чтобы грабить, насиловать, чтобы насиловать, убивать, чтобы убивать. за столько времени, как видим, ничего не изменилось, только позорное пятно расползлось по цивилизации шире и приблизительно научилось разговаривать.

поход т.н. Вещего Олега, стало быть, судя по всему, - легенда, а вот поход Игоря через почти 30 лет документально засвидетельствован как бессмысленное и беспощадное неразборчивое зло (так что тут ничего нового до сих пор). к счастью, смогли отразить - весь русский флот в 941 году разъебали греческим огнем (заметьте схожесть дат с поправкой на тысячелетие), так что т.н. победам русского оружия в Черном море издревле грош цена. и только после этого с ними стало возможно договариваться, то есть - покупать их с потрохами.

в 960 году русские, уже как наемники Византии, внесли свою лепту в захват Крита у сарацин. русский отряд наебенился так, что сарацины просто всех перерезали, хотя до тех пор (и после) кампания развивалась вполне успешно.

ускоренная перемотка на 10 лет, к 970 году. Святослав Игоревич идет завоевывать Византию через Болгарию, представляя захватническую войну так, что во Фракии де они должны "не посрамить русскую землю", как об этом, захлебываясь от вернопоодданического восторга, нам сообщают летописи. когда это во Фракии земля была русской, хрен его знает, конечно, но факт остается фактом: мотивировка была именно такая. при Аркадиополе их вполне зрелищно разъебали, как известно всем - кроме русских источников, убежденных, что русские там одержали победу. как это можно считать победой, я не знаю, но с тех пор и повелась традиция русской историографии - на черное говорить белое и вертеть законом и историей что дышлом. историки постыдливей, правда, потом придумали какую-то другую битву где-то в другом месте, и вот _там-то_ русские действительно одержали победу, но где это было и когда, от нас утаивают до сих пор. так что врать и преувеличивать, можно сказать, - исторически доказанная национальная черта русских. это помимо склонности к захватам чужого и тяги к бессмысленному и неразборчивому насилию.

местами, правда, автор пускает петуха, как и в первом томе с топонимами. тут у нас на календаре, например, 995 год, а болгарский царь "держит порох сухим", ага. до применения пороха в Европе еще лет 300, еще и слова такого не было. "греческий огонь" был, но это не порох, а напалм.

[Luis A. · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is volume II of III of the history of the Byzantine Empire. This volume, unlike the first one, covers a relatively short period of time: from the year 800 with the coronation of Charlemagne as Emperor of the Western Empire to Easter Day 1081, when Alexius Comnenus takes the reins of Byzantium.

The Empire in this period defends and expands its frontiers against a series of kingdoms, tribes, and other empires in every direction. North Africa, the Caucasus, the Middle East. The Russians make their debut as a force from the northeast, descending from the Black Sea to the bosphorus, but leaving without attacking Constantinople. Also in the northeast, the insatiable Pechenegs, of whom emperor Michael VII wrote that “it is… to our advantage to keep the peace with the Pecheneg nation…”, to give them whatever they ask for and in good grace. Then there are Bulgars, Slavs, Saracens, Avars, Normans, Lombards, many others and, of course, Turks.

Volume II continues the glorious voyage of the first book, it’s a trip of wonderment, amazement, and learning. It is very much centered on the personas of Emperors and senior officers, and not much on social or economical tides that affected and shaped the empire. This is just an observation, and not a criticism like the one barked by W. E. Lecky’s in History of European Morals (1869):

“The history of the Empire is a monotonous story of the intrigues of priests, eunuchs and women, of poisonings, of conspiracies, of uniform ingratitude, of perpetual fratricides.”

Hard to understand how the word “monotonous” can survive in the previous sentence!

[Andrés CM · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Hoy toca reseñar Bizancio. El apogeo (Ático de los libros, 2024), el segundo de la historia en tres volúmenes del Imperio bizantino de John Julius Norwich. Lo primero que tengo que decir es que, aunque el libro tiene la misma extensión que el primero (528 páginas), cubre sólo la mitad de la cantidad de años (478 años en el primer volumen y 281 en el segundo). La razón principal es que hay más fuentes para este período posterior y estas son más completas, por lo que la narración de Norwich es mucho más detallada..."
RESEÑA COMPLETA: https://atrapadaenunashojasdepapel.bl...

[Antigone · Rating 3 out of 5]

The second volume in Norwich's highly-touted trilogy on Byzantium, this work takes the civilization from 800 through 1081 A.D. - or roughly the start of the crusading influences - and contains a good deal more detail than the first. (Apparently, around the year 800, Byzantians began to see the worth in actually writing things down.) While not quite as melodramatic as Seutonius' Lives of the Twelve Caesars, there's enough high-handed behavior here to have kept the gossips fed for centuries. Norwich remains a pleasant read; he had a lot of ground to cover and he did not dawdle.

[Anubis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well, mr Norwich has done it again.

I have to admit something; i had no idea the Roman Empire had another rise. I thought that after Justinian the Romans were simply on the backtrack, and once they couldn't hold on the tide of Islamic caliphates that they implored the west for help. I knew about Manzikert, i knew about Basil II the Bulgar Slayer, but it was all somehow mixed in my mind, never really bothering to look up details.

I write this because i often really love history books whose narrative surprises me and makes me feel like i'm reading a novel. Mr Norwich does again a great job turning history in a page turner, and i was really glad i finally read this book as well.

There are some issues with the 2 books so far; the author really doesn't go into too much detail in what might be interesting things to someone like my; the structure of the army, the hierarchy and administration, the lives of everyday people etc... are often just glanced over. The details of campaigns and battles are often quite few, and it does make me feel wanting for more there.

There's also the issue of the authors insistance of using words which i am forced to look up; there's a lot of French words throw in as well, and while i know what a coup d'etat or coup de'grace are, i had too google once too often and it broke my immersion; not just the French words, he also uses some archaic and rarely used english words that i've never come across; and while it's possible to deduct their meaning from the context, i am forced by my brain to look it up, again loosing immersion.

Overall however, this is a fantastic book. While the details are lacking, it is clearly stated in the introduction by the author that he is simply writing an introductory book on the subject, and a concise one at that. He also says the book shouldn't be treated as anything more than it is, so it shouldn't be considered as some new research, or some scholarly work in the first place.

So i can't really fault him for not going into the details if he tells me he isn't going to do so in advance.

Already started the next one, let's see what else i didn't know about.

[Jose · Rating 5 out of 5]

Continúa la historia del Imperio Romano de Oriente, en esta ocasión retomamos desde el año 800 con la coronación de Carlomagno en Occidente, hasta la desastrosa batalla de Manzikert de 1075. En estos poco más de 200 años recorreremos el ancho imperio con sus luchas internas, sus conflictos religiosos, sus luces y sus sombras.
El libro es muy completo y exhaustivo veremos la sucesión de emperadores, patriarcas, papas y reyes, usurpadores y traidores. Si bien es cierto que la lectura requiere un poco de concentración (tampoco mucha) porque, a veces, es fácil perderse entre tantos actores. Sin embargo, el autor hace que rápidamente te vuelvas a encauzar. Además, teniendo en cuenta, que este imperio por lo general es poco conocido por el público y tenemos menos referencias visuales, el autor hace unas descripciones claras y concisas para que puedas imaginar como si estuvieras allí.
Por tanto, recomiendo mucho está trilogía sobre la historia del Imperio Bizantino. Si solo quieres una aproximacion rápida, yo siempre recomiendo el libro Constantinopla de Isaac Asimov, si quieres un texto más completo para no dejarte nada de la historia bizantina tienes que leer está trilogía. Pronto seguiremos con el último volumen que comienza con las Cruzadas.

[Lena_makridina · Rating 5 out of 5]

I much prefer this trilogy to Bethany Hughes book. It's challenging at times. It was difficult for me to keep the count of all the Emperors. Sometimes I had to go 20-40 pages back and read them again (even more true for the third book that I'm currently reading) but it was worth it.

[James Balseiro · Rating 4 out of 5]

If it didn’t start out as slow it would be 5 stars

[Paddy · Rating 4 out of 5]

This author has written several book on Mediterranean history - I first read The Kingdom in the Sun, about medieval Sicily, many years ago and loved it. He writes in a very readable style: his interest in culture and art generally, and in historical figures as real people, makes his books a great introduction to what would otherwise be quite an academic area. This one is the middle of a trilogy covering the thousand year history of the Byzantine Empire, which despite being thoroughly Greek in language and culture always thought of itself as the continuation of the Roman Empire. The years covered are approximately from 800 to 1100, when the Byzantines were at the peak of their power and influence, having just withstood the initial expansion of the great Arab Caliphate and were now dealing with Western Europe where "Catholic" Christianity was slipping away from their "Orthodox" version, Charlemagne being crowned Emperor by the Pope (a double insult), attacks from the Bulgars and Russians to the north and Arabs from everywhere else, and internal civil wars and political intrigues. The list of references is impressive and the author's ability to read scholarly works in French, German and other languages gives him an extremely comprehensive and well-rounded grasp of his subject. My only criticism would be that he sometimes gets a little carried away when describing characters' motivations and behaviours - largely educated guesswork! - but this does add a lot of colour and his interpretations could well be correct. I'd highly recommend all his books.

[T. Fowler · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this to be a fascinating book as it finally revealed to me the glorious story of the Byzantine Empire during the period when it was at its height of prestige and power from 800 to 1110 A.D. I had wanted to know this history for a long time but had not read anything about it, and this satisfied me greatly. It is a tale of courage and cowardice, of heroes and knaves, of great victories and terrible defeats, all told within the story of the rise and fall of so many who sought to take over the throne of this last surviving part of the Roman Empire.

[OsRavan · Rating 5 out of 5]

In my opinion the definitive series on byzantine history. The style is engaging for amateur and veteran historians alike. The author did his research well and it shows. The level of detail is pretty solid for a broad general history like this. If someone was asking for a general history or understand of the Byzantium era this is the gold standard to my eyes.

[Yong Huang · Rating 5 out of 5]

John Norwich is a great writer. The stories he told in this book are engaging, for several reasons. He frequently helped the reader review past events and made comparisons and reasonable analysis (e.g. "Originally established by Constantine the Great at the time of his foundation of the city, it had been largely rebuilt by Justinian; but that was nearly three hundred years before, and Theophilus was probably well justified in deciding that alterations and improvements were long overdue", p44). Occasionally these events occurred well out of the historical scope he was dealing with or fast forward to later time (e.g. "Normans of south Italy under their leader Robert Guiscard - the most dazzling military adventurer between Julius Caesar and Napoleon", p307) I consider these digressions scattered throughout the book necessary and pedagogically beneficial. Secondly, his frequent use of "the most" or "the first" perks up the spirit of the reader, who might feel boredom in reading certain passages. But of course his superlatives in subjective evaluation may not always be generally accepted by scholars or readers (e.g. "the Prince of Kiev was baptized by the local bishop in what was perhaps the most fateful religious ceremony in Russian history" in referring to Vladimir's scout for a religion for his people and adoption of Christianity, p245; or "Constantine X Ducas - arguably the most disastrous ruler ever", p338).

A non-specialist may find the book stimulating due to the author's selection of historical facts. As other reviewers pointed out, the writing is in Thomas Carlyle's "great hero" tradition, focusing on political figures such as emperors and military generals in preference to the ordinary people, and largely brushing aside other aspects of the rich history of Byzantium, such as economy, science, art. The truth is that an average reader not in the profession of historical research is greatly interested in story-telling, especially that of dynastic changes and the historical figures involved, as opposed to analysis of economy or science and technology. As to the history of the people, as for example in Howard Zinn's tradition, that would indeed be a necessary supplement for the completeness of the picture if not for political correctness. But for Mr. Norwich, it would be beyond the scope of his project, and probably be a tall order for any writer to create an equally engaging narrative under the condition of scarcity of extant documents that help complete stories of an ordinary person.

Mr. Norwich is probably a good scholar, or at least has a bent for serious scholarship. The book is strictly kept within the boundary of historical non-fiction. In case of insufficient primary sources and conflicting views of modern historians on a certain event, he readily acknowledged it and presented different versions of the story in the text instead of choosing the most dramatic one just to attract readers. I believe Mr. Norwich is very fluent in French (and Russian, as that's on his academic degree at Oxford too), probably in Latin as well, judging by the sources he used. His frequent citation of modern scholars suggests that he kept abreast of the research as of the time of his writing, and in case of disagreement, he posited his own theory as impartial as possible (e.g. he disagrees with Prof. Bury who suggests that Michael V "has been unfairly maligned", pp1041-).

The list of Emperors with reigning years and other appendices at the end greatly help us avoid mixing up the characters, many of whom are namesakes. The year number on the upper right corner of each odd-numbered page is a wonderful invention; you can immediately find out what year the event described on this page occurred in, or what pages talk about the events of a given year. The book uses foot notes instead of end notes to minimize interruption in reading. The book is well indexed, and Google Books is authorized for "snippet view" so you can easily search with keywords.

[Michał Hołda · Rating 4 out of 5]

Its superb book, second volume of story about Byzantine Rome.

When Bizantine fought with Russians and Bulgarians, despise that Romans had giving slavs gold .

When Vladimir Svyatoslavich the Great got baptized only to marry Anna was a Porphyrogenita who expressed deep distress on her way to her wedding.

Byzantine fought with muslims too.

Tow great victorious for Byzantine Rome are:

-Nikephoros captured city of adata of pamphylia.

-capturing city of Samosata, now Samsat at Eufrat river by John Tzimiskes.

-Afther that alians of Otto the saxon, Otto I and Ommaya
caliphate(lands of spain) of cordoba happend to be fiasco.
---
There was Byzantine renaissance , Macedonian(Roman-Slavic) Renaissance is a historiographical term used for the blossoming of Byzantine culture in the 9th–11th centuries, under the eponymous Macedonian dynasty (867–1056), following the upheavals and transformations of the 7th–8th centuries, also known as the "Byzantine Dark Ages".


Iconoclastic Controversy, a dispute over the use of religious images (icons) in the Byzantine Empire in the 8th and 9th centuries. ... The defenders of the use of icons insisted on the symbolic nature of images and on the dignity of created matter.

They has been Forbidding of depicting Saints and Mary of Jesus with sculptures and only allowing for iconography in two dimensional portrait that is showing already dead figures. Not to forget that Muslims themselves has been against any means of depicting iconography, that has been convinced that faith can only be word of god.
---
Among other are Henry the Fowler

As the first Saxon king of East Francia, Henry was the founder of the Ottonian dynasty. He and his descendants ruled East Francia, and later the Holy Roman Empire, from 919 until 1024.

Otto the Great that brought holly roman empire into glory not seen since Charlemagne.

And title Latinized as Porphyrogenitus, was an honorific title in the Byzantine Empire given to a son, or daughter (Πορφυρογέννητη, Porphyrogénnētē, Latinized Porphyrogenita), born after the father had become emperor.

The Ottonian rulers were successors of the Germanic king Conrad I who was the only Germanic king to rule in East Francia after the Carolingian dynasty and before this dynasty.
---
And finally Isaac I Komnenos or Comnenus who lost his empire to Richard the Lionheart during the Third Crusade.

And his wife Theodora Komnene, who married King Baldwin III of Jerusalem.

It was likely not an abduction; Andronikos was already married, and had already had an affair with Philippa, a sister of Prince Bohemund III of Antioch and of Manuel's wife Maria of Antioch, and he was likely trying to escape persecution by Manuel, who did not approve of these incestuous affairs.
---
Bulgaria found land to settle at because they won with Byzantine Rome, although there was The Uprising of Peter, that was a major Bulgarian rebellion against the Byzantine Empire in the Theme of Bulgaria.

Is wise to remember Battle of Ongal, and Battle of Boulgarophygon indeed.

It was fought between the Bulgarians, who had recently invaded the Balkans, and the Byzantine Empire, which ultimately lost the battle. The battle was crucial for the creation of the First Bulgarian Empire

Battle of Boulgarophygon

Simeon would go on to inflict a number of defeats on the Byzantines in pursuit of his ultimate goal, the throne in Constantinople. The peace treaty that was signed as a result of the battle confirmed the Bulgarian domination in the Balkans.

The result was an annihilation of the Byzantine army which determined the Bulgarian victory in the trade war of 894–896

The Byzantine–Bulgarian war of 894–896 (Bulgarian: Българо–византийска война от 894–896) was fought between the Bulgarian Empire and the Byzantine Empire as a result of the decision of the Byzantine emperor Leo VI to move the Bulgarian market from Constantinople to Thessaloniki

Over to the third and last volume : D

[Cronicadelibros · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nota real : 9/10

📚 Bizancio. El apogeo de John Julius Norwich es el segundo volumen de su trilogía sobre el Imperio Bizantino, y abarca uno de los periodos más intensos, contradictorios y vibrantes del imperio: desde el año 800 hasta la llegada al poder de Alejo I Comneno (1081). A lo largo de estas páginas, Norwich sigue con su estilo narrativo personalísimo, que mezcla rigor histórico con juicios de valor, y no oculta su simpatía —ni sus disgustos— por ciertos personajes imperiales.
🧐 Uno de los rasgos más notorios del libro es precisamente ese: Norwich no se limita a narrar, sino que toma partido. Le molestan los asesinatos de emperadores, incluso si eran tiranos; se indigna con las revueltas, y más de una vez parece narrar la historia del Imperio como si fuera suya. Puede resultar discutible, pero también dota al relato de una energía muy particular. Cuando las fuentes discrepan, expone todas las versiones y se posiciona, lo que ofrece una lectura activa y comprometida.
⚔️ El hilo conductor es, sin duda, la historia política: emperadores, usurpadores, patriarcas, conjuras, mutilaciones y alianzas. Hay poco espacio para la vida cotidiana, el entramado burocrático o el papel de la Iglesia más allá de su función como campo de batalla ideológico y de poder. Se echa en falta un análisis más profundo de la administración o la sociedad, aunque aparecen apuntes llamativos, como la evolución de los castigos: de la mutilación (nariz, orejas) se pasa a la ceguera como método para inhabilitar a posibles rivales, o la tonsura y el retiro monástico como salida "civilizada", aunque reversible.
📈 El relato arranca con la amenaza del Kan Krum y una sucesión de emperadores débiles, hasta llegar a la estabilización que permite el ascenso de la dinastía Macedonia. Norwich dedica especial atención a Basilio I y a su obra de reconstrucción territorial y religiosa, y a uno de sus futuros sucesores Basilio II, cuya gesta militar contra Bulgaria culmina con uno de los episodios más duros del libro: la ceguera de 15.000 soldados búlgaros tras la batalla de Clidio. La expansión territorial, la afirmación frente al islam, las tensiones con Roma y el estallido del Cisma de Oriente y Occidente van marcando el ritmo de un imperio que parece renacer… solo para volver a caer por las luchas internas.
🎭 A lo largo de los capítulos desfilan figuras como Teófilo, Miguel III "el beodo", el reformador León VI, el eficiente pero repudiado Nicéforo Focas, o los brillantes generales Juan Tzimisces o Juan Curcuas. Tras la muerte de Basilio II, se inicia una pendiente descendente: emperadores incapaces, elevados al púrpura por matrimonios aconsejados por burócratas con intereses personales, y un ejército debilitado, cada vez más compuesto por mercenarios. La culminación de ese declive es la derrota de Romano IV en Manzikert y su cruel destino, antesala de un periodo convulso que solo encuentra un nuevo punto de inflexión con el ascenso de Alejo I.
🗺️ Como el anterior volumen, el libro incluye un útil cuadernillo central con fotografías en color, mapas contextualizados y cuadros genealógicos tanto bizantinos como de reinos rivales, así como un práctico compendio con listados de todos los emperadores, patriarcas, papas y soberanos musulmanes del período que abarca este volumen, junto con numerosos textos de la época, convirtiendo esta obra no solo en una lectura atractiva, sino también en una excelente herramienta de consulta.
📖 Este segundo volumen de Norwich es una lectura apasionante para quien busca la gran historia del poder imperial bizantino, con todos sus matices dramáticos, contradicciones y teatralidad. Su enfoque centrado en los grandes personajes puede dejar ángulos sin explorar, pero compensa con una narrativa clara, rica en anécdotas, y con un estilo muy reconocible. Más que una historia fría del imperio, Bizancio. El apogeo se lee como una crónica vivida —y sentida—.

[7jane · Rating 4 out of 5]

Back to reading this trilogy (unfortunately don’t have the third part, but I can find other books for that, at least most of it I hope). The story continues on from the coronation of Charlemagne in 1081 to Alexius I Comnenus who seems to bring some hope into a downpoint in Byzantine history (though author does say that the end of Basil II’s reign begins the downward turn. Apogee here means the high point in the empire’s history, and it seems such as I read through many stories of its rulers, mostly men.

At the start are some maps (the capital, the Mediterranean world of Byzantium, Bulgaria c.900, Anatolia and Armenia), and four family trees. At the end are lists of the emperors of East and West relevant to the story, Muslim sultans, patriarchs of the empire, and the Popes. I recommend keeping some sort of bookmark on both ends so you can look at the family trees (even the non-rulers are important here) and the rulers etc.of book’s times.

It was easier for the author to find material for this part of history, since writings become more abundant and reliable, though of course some things are still left to guess. Notes at the end of some pages also give you some interesting details, so one should read them.

For this part of story, the Bulgars and the Russians become important to the story; parts about the lands in Italy get less attention; the situations with the Muslims remain (and the Armenians are also important). Religion-wise, the gap between the churches of East and West keeps on widening and finally becomes permanent separation. Iconoclasm gets a second wave, but less strongly so, and is quicker finished. The patriarchs, like the emperors, vary in their strenghts and weaknesses, meddling and helpless, blocking certain things, and messing some others when everything was going fine. So sometimes a death of a partriarch is really a relief for everyone else.

Once again, emperors are never too boring to read about. Families come and go. Some come from humble roots, some are nobility. Their looks vary, states of health vary, tempers vary, abilities to rule vary, virtues and vices vary. Lenghts of their reigns vary. And of course, their endings vary. Betrayals, exiles, punishments like blindings, assasinations, into monasteries and back (sometimes several times).
Each one’s rule can help or hinder the empire’s powers. Marriages and having or not having chidren or close-enough relatives can influence who will rule next. Marriages promised and given are useful influences in countries friendships/hostilities to each other.

At first the story seemed a bit muted, but then things started picking up, and the details left me wondering ’what turn will the story take next’? And cheering or groaning as the emperors make their decisions (or lack them) or begin/finish their rule.
And at times, you wish you could see some things described within, like the mechanical animals of gold and precious stones, or certain buildings that no longer exist. Battles are also sometimes interesting and no doubt occasionally impressive to see.

But really, like the first part, this became such an enjoyable ride that I felt a bit lost as it was finished. Still, loved it, loved the details, loved the history, and can say this was a great reading experience.

[Miguel Strogoff · Rating 5 out of 5]

Una vez más, el señor Norwich vuelve a deleitarnos con un extraordinario relato de 271 años a base de intrigas palaciegas y eclesiásticas, así como laureadas victorias en el campo de batalla y alguna que otra catástrofe sin remedio.

El título de este segundo tomo sobre la historia del Imperio romano de Oriente no puede hacer mayor justicia a su contenido: el esplendor de la dinastía Macedonia, ese "renacimiento macedonio" que vio la conquista y expansión de territorio imperial por Bulgaria, Armenia, Siria, la Italia meridional y demás; la cosecha de triunfales victorias a manos de generales brillantes (no obstante, quizá eclipsados por Belisario) como Juan Curcuas y emperadores como Basilio I el Macedonio, Nicéforo Focas, Juan Tzimisces o Basilio II el Matabúlgaros (todos ellos tan geniales militares como gobernantes a excepción de Nicéforo); la continuación del fastuoso legado arquitectónico y artístico que vio el fin de la iconoclasia; y la gran explosión intelectual. La Edad Media ha sido ensombrecida por la ignorancia y se tiende a olvidar la gran labor de los no pocos sabios de la época, cosa que si ya es acentuada en Occidente, en Oriente es totalmente desconocida al público general si no se trata del mundo árabe. Nombres como Juan el Garmático, Miguel Pselo, Juan Estilitzes, el Continuador de Teófanes, Atalaiates, o emperadores como Teófilo, León VI el Sabio, mi muy querido Constantino VII Porfirogéneta (curioso paralelismo con el emperador Claudio) o incluso el inepto de Constantino IX Monómaco. Por supuesto, coprotagonistas de esta historia son las rivalidades diplomáticas entre las Iglesias de Roma y Constantinopla, con actores como los patriarcas Focio e Ignacio, el papa Nicolás I, el patriarca Miguel Cerulario (cuyo cisma definitivo acaba pareciendo una tonta pelea entre colegas, si se me permite el coloquialismo), el "difunto" papa León IX, etc., la mayoría de los cuales en deuda con el obispo Liutprando de Cremona por su inmortalidad en sus excelentes crónicas, lo cual no hace más que desmitificar y avivar el interés por la historia medieval occidental, por lo que estaremos al tanto de los escritos de Indro Montanelli. Los ascensos al poder de los emperadores, las intrigas entre aristócratas y miembros de la corte dignas de novela, las sublevaciones militares, la gloria de los vencedores y los despiadados castigos a los fallidos insurgentes o gobernantes derrocados serán una constante en la historia del imperio. No obstante, la hegemonía que alcanzó en estos dos siglos capituló con la dinastía que lo impusló, y el desastre de Manzikert no fue más que la confirmación de su declive. El detalle que Norwich dedica a cada emperador sobre sus facetas política, militar y administrativa es una auténtica delicia, todo acompasado perfectamente con la cronología de la historia sin detenerse a explicar de forma teórica conceptos sociológicos o económicos, introduciendo episodios de formidable importancia de corte diplomáico-eclesiástico o militar a la manera de los historiadores y cronistas clásicos. Tanto saber precioso condensado en este tomo...

Quizá la editorial Ático de libros debería hacer una exhaustiva revisión de esta edición en la que los errores tipográficos proliferan como tribus bárbaras en los Balcanes, sobre todo en la segunda mitad.

[Mariusz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thoroughly enjoyable sequel to the Byzantium: The Early Centuries by the same author. The second part of the trilogy reads as well as the first part and, just as the first part, weaves the story very skilfully, always explaining the preceding context. Worth noting is that the trilogy is not meant for academics studying the history of the Eastern Empire, but for ordinary people interested in this reasonably undersupplied by way of books fragment of history, a point made numerous times by the author.

The second part takes off with the coronation of Charlemagne and the consequent establishment of the competing Western Roman Empire in the year 800 and ends shortly after the disaster of Manzikert in 1071. The lopping off of noses, a way of ensuring that a defeated contender would never become the emperor (in keeping with a tradition that a disfigured person could not become one), so prevalent in the first part of the trilogy, gives way to a much more effective practice of beheading, after a nose-less deposed imperial family member became the emperor, nonetheless…

In the second part, when the Empire comes under continuous onslaught of the Saracens, Bulgars, Magyars, Pechenegs, Russians, the Western Empire, Turks, and the papacy, it becomes even more evident how the quality, or lack thereof, of the various emperors impacted the fate of the Empire. The quality understood, in essence, as the continuous ability to maintain authority in all four of the principal constituencies of the Empire – the army, the aristocracy, the Orthodox Church, and the people of Constantinople. Ignoring any of these constituencies or allowing one’s guard to be lowered even for relatively short periods, often resulted in coup d’états, with consequent beheadings, or at best consignments of the former emperors to one of the many monasteries. The second part brings with it the dawning of the Orthodox Church as an autonomous entity to be reckoned with, often impacting events in a significant way.

When reading the book, more than during the lecture of any other, including the first part, it dawned on me how the unfolding historical events bear resemblance to the modern day. When led by feckless emperors, with the aristocracy preoccupied solely with preserving its dominion, and the army perceived (often justifiably so, it must be said) predominantly as a threat, rather than the principal bulwark of the Empire, and, consequently, allowed to wither away during periods of relative peace, the Empire fell victim to external threats, not necessarily due to the seriousness of these, but largely at its own request.

Very glad to have read the second part, I look forward (despite the sad and well-known 1453 grand finale) to reading the third part of this captivating trilogy. Onwards…!

[Peter Corrigan · Rating 4 out of 5]

My Amazon review on April 19, 2018: Byzantium 102

With little background in the subject except for Volume I in the Norwich series I have nothing to compare this against and little insight into the accuracy. Given his solid reputation however, I suspect that it is as accurate as it needs to be for the purpose. He repeatedly states when the narrative is venturing onto 'thin ice' and where sources are lacking in details (quite often). This is not a true academic work I suppose, but it is more detailed history than most people probably need or want. His 1-volume history of Byzantium might be sufficient for a primer and this 3-volume history is one step beyond but still feels hurried at times. The narrative is eminently readable and fascinating if you have any interest in the subject or imagination. I certainly recall almost no teaching of Byzantine history in my school days, after Rome is sacked a few times that is that last you ever heard of anything to do with the Roman Empire. Maybe it was mentioned that the Ottomans conquered Constantinople, not even sure about that. Basically it went something like this: 'Rome fell, the Dark Ages ensued and then on to the Renaissance'. But what a history was ignored! The Byzantine story is a simply amazing tale of everything that is human. Greed, deception, cruelty, lust, bravery, glory, faith and more. The Dark Ages may have existed in western Europe but clearly a lot was going on in the 'East'. A history of the incessant warfare on every front would alone be worthy of several separate texts and the maps in that regard are lacking. Not sure there is much documentation however on many of these clashes. Even the location of the pivotal Battle of Manzikert is not well-known. Speaking of which, anyone who thinks that the Crusades ignited the clash between Islam and Christianity ought to become familiar with Byzantine history. One could make a very strong case that its resistance saved the entire 'west' from subjugation (or at least the women). I am looking forward to Volume 3 as the first two books have ignited my interest. Is Gibbon worth reading? That is one question I have.

[Tiberius Claudius Nero · Rating 4 out of 5]

In the second volume of his history of Byzantium, John Julius Norwich covers the 281-year sweep of Byzantine history from 800 to 1081. As the title implies, these centuries saw Byzantium reach its apogee in the Middle Ages, with each successive emperor building on the progress of his predecessor, until a new apex was achieved in 1025. By that time, the Byzantine Empire stretched from Italy to Armenia, had over twelve million subjects under its sway, and stood as the most powerful state in Europe or the Middle East.

Yet the title belies this volume's depressing end, for that grand achievement - the work of dozens of emperors and hundreds of years - was destined to unravel in barely half a century. The final five chapters cover that near-total imperial disintegration, ending in the disastrous battle of Manzikert in 1071 and finishing with the usurpation of Alexios Komnenos in 1081.

It ends on a note of grim determination; ultimately, the damage the Empire ultimately suffered would never be undone, yet the Byzantines would not stop trying - although the resolution awaits the third and final volume in Norwich's history.

[Hasdrubal Barca · Rating 5 out of 5]

For years I have wanted to understand how the ancient world gave way to the Middle Ages. This three-volume set illuminated many of the details of the Eastern Empire with its oriental influences and often dysfunctional theocracy. It is, however, a survey, and leaves one wanting the details which such an ambitious work cannot possible contain. I highly recommend it though and think it would be one way to discover that atrocities were not committed only by the Christians of history as we often hear nowadays. If Americans were as obsessed with medieval history as Muslims are, we would certainly teach our children about the Muslim hoards (the Ottomans) that took Byzantium in a bloodbath, slaughtered and enslaved its people, and turned its churches into Mosques. The Ottoman era is often referred to as a kind of "golden age" of Islam by some Muslims while others, Wahabis, for example, campaign for a far more severe regime. To understand more about that I suggest Dore Gold's excellent book, Hatred's Kingdom.

[Onur Özler · Rating 5 out of 5]

Serinin ikinci kitabında, tahtta en çok kalan Makedon hanedanı ve son olarak Komnenosların geldiği dönemi kapsıyor.

Türk ve Arap istilalarına kadar, II. Basileios "BulgarKıran" (Bulgaraktonos) Bulgaristanı, imparatorluk topraklarına katıp imparatorluğu doğunun hakimi kılmıştır. Bu arada Hz. Muhammed'in ölümünden sonra dağılan Müslümanlar Abbasiler Halifeliği altında toplanmış, Konstantinopolisi tehdit etmeye başlamıştır. İmparatorluğun şansına o sıralar becerikli imparatorlar gelmiş, gerek entrika gerek diplomasiyle Müslüman akınından korunmuşlardır. Ta ki 1071'e kadar... Ama her şeyin sonu daha gelmemiştir, bu karışıklardan sonra askeri bir darbe yaparak tahta cçkan I. Aleksios Komnenos ve hanedanı imparatorluğun hala kolay bir lokma olmadığını herkese gösterecektir.