What do you think?
Rate this book
A History of the Byzantine State and Society
This is the first comprehensive and up-to-date history of Byzantium to appear in almost sixty years, and the first ever to cover both the Byzantine state and Byzantine society. It begins in a.d. 285, when the emperor Diocletian separated what became Byzantium from the western Roman Empire, and ends in 1461, when the last Byzantine outposts fell to the Ottoman Turks.Spanning twelve centuries and three continents, the Byzantine Empire linked the ancient and modern worlds, shaping and transmitting Greek, Roman, and Christian traditionsthat remain vigorous today, not only in Eastern Europe and the Middle East but throughout Western civilization. Though in its politics Byzantium often resembled a third-world dictatorship, it has never yet been matched in maintaining a single state for so long, over a wide area inhabited by heterogeneous peoples.Drawing on a wealth of original sources and modern works, the author treats political and social developments as a single vivid story, told partly in detailed narrative and partly in essays that clarify long-term changes. He avoids stereotypes and rejects such old and new historical orthodoxies as the persistent weakness of the Byzantine economy and the pervasive importance of holy men in Late Antiquity.Without neglecting underlying social, cultural, and economic trends, the author shows the often crucial impact of nearly a hundred Byzantine emperors and empresses. What the emperor or empress did, or did not do, could rapidly confront ordinary Byzantines with economic ruin, new religious doctrines, or conquest by a foreign power. Much attention is paid to the complex life of the court and bureaucracy that has given us the adjective "byzantine." The major personalities include such famous names as Constantine, Justinian, Theodora, and Heraclius, along with lesser-known figures like Constans II, Irene, Basil II the Bulgar-Slayer, and Michael VIII Palaeologus.Byzantine civilization emerges as durable, creative, and realistic, overcoming repeated setbacks to remain prosperous almost to the end. With 221 illustrations and 18 maps that complement the text, A History of the Byzantine State and Society should long remain the standard history of Byzantium not just for students and scholars but for all readers.
1044 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1997
66 people are currently reading
1031 people want to read
About the author
Warren Treadgold
19 books32 followersWarren Treadgold (AB Harvard, 1970, PhD Harvard, 1977) has taught ancient and medieval history and literature at UCLA, Stanford, UC Berkeley, Hillsdale College, and Florida International University and is now National Endowment for the Humanities Professor of Byzantine Studies at Saint Louis University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews
July 31, 2014
Well, this is the first truly scholarly history of Byzantium I've read. Previously, I've read through my Norwich and Lars Brownworth's more recent book, as well as primary source accounts like those of Choniates or Anna Komnenos, but this book marked a step up, if you will, in my study of the Eastern Roman Empire.
First of all, a brief disclaimer. While this book claims to be a comprehensive general survey, it is most definitely NOT a good introduction to the history of the Byzantine Empire, nor do I think it was meant to be. The author assumes you have a basic level of familiarity with some of the events, and he comments on or implicitly voices his disagreements with Norwich and Ostrogorsky on several matters. I would suggest that you begin with Norwich's excellent one volume concise history, and then move onto this book for a more thorough and modern perspective.
The Good:
Treadgold's analysis differs widely from previous authors and some of my own views. While my personal opinion is that he gives Michael VIII Palaiologos too much credit and the (in my view) brilliant Komnenid emperors not enough, he justifies his analyses well and he obviously understands his sources and material on a level that I absolutely don't. His commentary on Constans II's administrative skill as well as his convincing argument on the fact that Phokas was stuck into a shitty situation on his accession that no emperor would have done too well in thoroughly changed my opinions on those two men.
The scholarship in this book is top-notch. Treadgold is a guy who specializes in (guess what!) political, social, and military Byzantine history and it shows. The bibliography at the end of the book is insanely extensive, and the source notes indicate that he has a clear understanding of the reliability of certain biased authors.
The scope of the book itself is impressive and really drives home the point that the Byzantine state had an unmatched ability to endure despite huge catastrophes. Treadgold writes with the same amount of detail about the Roman state of Late Antiquity led by Diocletian as he does about the end of the empire when it was a rump state serving as vassal to the Ottoman sultan, yet still intellectually and culturally flourishing and having a great deal of prestige in the eyes of the Mediterranean world.
The book includes minute details on its foci, the society and state, but doesn't allow itself to be bogged down in any one period. Treadgold summarizes the intellectual accomplishments, social conditions, and political organization of each period in the last chapter of each section. There's also more information on the state budget than anyone who reads the subject on a casual level ever needed, although I found it quite interesting.
Treadgold fights against the narrative of "inevitable decline" with his every breath. He falls victim to none of the assumptions and falsehoods that have been promoted by historians such as Gibbon (...) on the subject, and stresses again and again how strong the state and culture of Byzantium actually was, and how remarkable it was for it to survive for so long in the first place.
The reference materials Treadgold includes provide a valuable tool in understanding the text. I can't keep track of every single Patriarch and Emperor even though I've been studying this subject for four years, and the back of the book has a handy list of all of them along with the years they reigned.
The pictures and maps scattered throughout help immensely in understanding the subject matter and breaking up the text.
Finally, this is truly the most up-to-date and comprehensive Byzantine history book around that I know of. If there is a definitive reference with good, modern scholarship and analysis and extensive but general detail that I want around for Byzantium it's most definitely this volume. Sure, there's plenty of individual papers and articles in journals like Speculum that have extended upon and provided more insight into very individual topics (an excellent article on the Battle of Manzikert and its aftermath being one that comes to my mind), but this book is exactly what it advertises on the back.
The Odd/Neutral:
Treadgold's prose is serviceable. In my opinion, that's the best word for it. It's definitely readable and had me chuckling sometimes at some dry wit, but it's not exciting or captivating like the work of some popular historians. However, since I have a good interest in the subject matter it certainly wasn't a chore to get through.
The... commentary on earlier Byzantine historians is a bit ungenerous. However, I see where Treadgold's coming from and I agree with him on most of his criticisms.
The Not-So-Good (there's nothing really BAD):
The numbers are almost certainly over-inflated, especially in regards to military strength in the Macedonian period. While Treadgold himself admits they're only paper estimates I still find it hard to believe that Basil II could support an army of 250,000 and still run a huge surplus in the treasury while the Komnenids with similar resources only ran one of 50,000. I also find it hard to believe that 20,000 Khurramite Zoroastrian refugees were somehow settled in Anatolia and managed to assimilate into mainstream Byzantine culture so much that there was no evidence of them having existed even a few emperors later.
The budget and other numerical figures, which Treadgold seems to treat as established fact, really aren't at all. Any estimate of the budget is just that, an estimate, even though he seems quite exact and sure of his numbers. However, the general trend they indicate in decreasing or increasing or heavily strained revenues can be treated so, at least.
Treadgold focuses on the Byzantine state's weakness more than any of its enemies' strength. Whenever there's a decline in the Empire, he seems to trace it to internal problems rather than any of Byzantium's very formidable opponents. While I believe that he's right and that the empire with a strong leader could have fended off nearly any opponent with a good mixture of diplomacy, intimidation, and military force, I feel like he doesn't give Byzantium's formidable enemies like the early Caliphate or the Seljuk Turks enough credit, especially after the brilliant Khalid al-Whalid is barely mentioned almost as a side note.
The theological disputes, especially in the early period, went into a lot of detail that oftentimes perplexed my non-religious mind. While Iconoclasm and Heyschasm made quite a bit of sense to me, Monophysitism vs. Monotheletism vs. Chalcedonian belief vs. Miaphysitism was some of the most confusing and difficult material I've had to cover in any history book. I would have appreciated it if there was a little less detail on those theological disputes, but this is absolutely a personal preference and I recognize the important social and political implications that these disputes had. Really not so a con at all, as something I just didn't like. This more indicates a weakness of my own than the book, I think.
Um... more of a personal thing, but I would have liked more detail on Byzantine military tactics and organization. Yes, I wanted this book to be even longer. I understand, though, that this book is a "History of the Byzantine State and Society," and not one about Byzantine military treatises and tactics, so once again this isn't a fault of the book. However, Treadgold's a great military historian as well so I was expecting a little more detail than "they fell upon the enemy in an ambush and defeated them." To indulge my armchair general I think I'll be picking up Sowing the Dragon's Teeth, which I've heard great stuff about.
CONCLUSION/ TOO LONG; DIDN'T READ:
This is a great book for those that love Byzantine history already like myself. This is not a great book for those who want to get started in Byzantine history. On a level of scholarship I'm not even willing to judge it in any way: I'm just an amateur high school student, after all, and Dr. Treadgold has a PhD from the excellent program at Harvard.
However, for the average Joe or Jane, my recommendation is to not read this book unless you know a fair bit already. This is a great "second book" if you want to really chew into the subject; otherwise, if you don't know anything, there's more accessible books on the oftentimes violent, usually glorious, and perpetually interesting Byzantine or Eastern Roman Empire.
Thank you for reading.
First of all, a brief disclaimer. While this book claims to be a comprehensive general survey, it is most definitely NOT a good introduction to the history of the Byzantine Empire, nor do I think it was meant to be. The author assumes you have a basic level of familiarity with some of the events, and he comments on or implicitly voices his disagreements with Norwich and Ostrogorsky on several matters. I would suggest that you begin with Norwich's excellent one volume concise history, and then move onto this book for a more thorough and modern perspective.
The Good:
Treadgold's analysis differs widely from previous authors and some of my own views. While my personal opinion is that he gives Michael VIII Palaiologos too much credit and the (in my view) brilliant Komnenid emperors not enough, he justifies his analyses well and he obviously understands his sources and material on a level that I absolutely don't. His commentary on Constans II's administrative skill as well as his convincing argument on the fact that Phokas was stuck into a shitty situation on his accession that no emperor would have done too well in thoroughly changed my opinions on those two men.
The scholarship in this book is top-notch. Treadgold is a guy who specializes in (guess what!) political, social, and military Byzantine history and it shows. The bibliography at the end of the book is insanely extensive, and the source notes indicate that he has a clear understanding of the reliability of certain biased authors.
The scope of the book itself is impressive and really drives home the point that the Byzantine state had an unmatched ability to endure despite huge catastrophes. Treadgold writes with the same amount of detail about the Roman state of Late Antiquity led by Diocletian as he does about the end of the empire when it was a rump state serving as vassal to the Ottoman sultan, yet still intellectually and culturally flourishing and having a great deal of prestige in the eyes of the Mediterranean world.
The book includes minute details on its foci, the society and state, but doesn't allow itself to be bogged down in any one period. Treadgold summarizes the intellectual accomplishments, social conditions, and political organization of each period in the last chapter of each section. There's also more information on the state budget than anyone who reads the subject on a casual level ever needed, although I found it quite interesting.
Treadgold fights against the narrative of "inevitable decline" with his every breath. He falls victim to none of the assumptions and falsehoods that have been promoted by historians such as Gibbon (...) on the subject, and stresses again and again how strong the state and culture of Byzantium actually was, and how remarkable it was for it to survive for so long in the first place.
The reference materials Treadgold includes provide a valuable tool in understanding the text. I can't keep track of every single Patriarch and Emperor even though I've been studying this subject for four years, and the back of the book has a handy list of all of them along with the years they reigned.
The pictures and maps scattered throughout help immensely in understanding the subject matter and breaking up the text.
Finally, this is truly the most up-to-date and comprehensive Byzantine history book around that I know of. If there is a definitive reference with good, modern scholarship and analysis and extensive but general detail that I want around for Byzantium it's most definitely this volume. Sure, there's plenty of individual papers and articles in journals like Speculum that have extended upon and provided more insight into very individual topics (an excellent article on the Battle of Manzikert and its aftermath being one that comes to my mind), but this book is exactly what it advertises on the back.
The Odd/Neutral:
Treadgold's prose is serviceable. In my opinion, that's the best word for it. It's definitely readable and had me chuckling sometimes at some dry wit, but it's not exciting or captivating like the work of some popular historians. However, since I have a good interest in the subject matter it certainly wasn't a chore to get through.
The... commentary on earlier Byzantine historians is a bit ungenerous. However, I see where Treadgold's coming from and I agree with him on most of his criticisms.
The Not-So-Good (there's nothing really BAD):
The numbers are almost certainly over-inflated, especially in regards to military strength in the Macedonian period. While Treadgold himself admits they're only paper estimates I still find it hard to believe that Basil II could support an army of 250,000 and still run a huge surplus in the treasury while the Komnenids with similar resources only ran one of 50,000. I also find it hard to believe that 20,000 Khurramite Zoroastrian refugees were somehow settled in Anatolia and managed to assimilate into mainstream Byzantine culture so much that there was no evidence of them having existed even a few emperors later.
The budget and other numerical figures, which Treadgold seems to treat as established fact, really aren't at all. Any estimate of the budget is just that, an estimate, even though he seems quite exact and sure of his numbers. However, the general trend they indicate in decreasing or increasing or heavily strained revenues can be treated so, at least.
Treadgold focuses on the Byzantine state's weakness more than any of its enemies' strength. Whenever there's a decline in the Empire, he seems to trace it to internal problems rather than any of Byzantium's very formidable opponents. While I believe that he's right and that the empire with a strong leader could have fended off nearly any opponent with a good mixture of diplomacy, intimidation, and military force, I feel like he doesn't give Byzantium's formidable enemies like the early Caliphate or the Seljuk Turks enough credit, especially after the brilliant Khalid al-Whalid is barely mentioned almost as a side note.
The theological disputes, especially in the early period, went into a lot of detail that oftentimes perplexed my non-religious mind. While Iconoclasm and Heyschasm made quite a bit of sense to me, Monophysitism vs. Monotheletism vs. Chalcedonian belief vs. Miaphysitism was some of the most confusing and difficult material I've had to cover in any history book. I would have appreciated it if there was a little less detail on those theological disputes, but this is absolutely a personal preference and I recognize the important social and political implications that these disputes had. Really not so a con at all, as something I just didn't like. This more indicates a weakness of my own than the book, I think.
Um... more of a personal thing, but I would have liked more detail on Byzantine military tactics and organization. Yes, I wanted this book to be even longer. I understand, though, that this book is a "History of the Byzantine State and Society," and not one about Byzantine military treatises and tactics, so once again this isn't a fault of the book. However, Treadgold's a great military historian as well so I was expecting a little more detail than "they fell upon the enemy in an ambush and defeated them." To indulge my armchair general I think I'll be picking up Sowing the Dragon's Teeth, which I've heard great stuff about.
CONCLUSION/ TOO LONG; DIDN'T READ:
This is a great book for those that love Byzantine history already like myself. This is not a great book for those who want to get started in Byzantine history. On a level of scholarship I'm not even willing to judge it in any way: I'm just an amateur high school student, after all, and Dr. Treadgold has a PhD from the excellent program at Harvard.
However, for the average Joe or Jane, my recommendation is to not read this book unless you know a fair bit already. This is a great "second book" if you want to really chew into the subject; otherwise, if you don't know anything, there's more accessible books on the oftentimes violent, usually glorious, and perpetually interesting Byzantine or Eastern Roman Empire.
Thank you for reading.
April 12, 2019
If you're looking for a comprehensive book on the history of Byzantium, look no further: this is the book. Treadgold managed to write a book that critically examines almost every aspect crucial to the Byzantine history, including politics, society, theology and state-affairs. Each item covered by the author is elegant and versatile, and even though there are certain minor inconsistencies, the overall reception is one of awe due to the book's picturesque take on the subject.
Instead of focusing solely on palace intrigues and on overemphasizing minor events, however appealing they might seem, Treadgold draws our attention to matters essential to functioning of a state. In this regard, he gives a very instructive description of a fiscal reform of 498 under the emperor Anastasius, with its chief principle to substitute cash payments for most of the remaining payments in kind, a move first initiated by emperors Constantine I and Theodosius I. That, in turn, changed the situation of frontier soldiers who weren't paid in food anymore and instead started to receive monetary allowances, which stimulated state's economy.
Everyone interested in the reign of one the most skilled Roman emperors, Justinian I, will surely be satisfied, as the emperor receives more than significant attention. The author provides an extensive description of his political, fiscal and theological reforms. Brilliantly described by Treadgold is the securing of the empire's borders, reconquering the former Roman territories and conquering the new ones (temporary and straining though they might've been). Also, you might find interesting the Nika Revolt of 532, when a mob of two rivalling chariot racing factions, the Blues and the Greens, broke out in an open revolt against Justinian, who, after initial setback, managed to subjugate the rebels by use of force of his two loyal generals, Belisarius and Mundus, and cemented power within Constantinople itself. One could only hope for a better treatment of Justinian's four-part legal codifications: the Codex Iustinianus, the Digesta, the Institutiones and the Novellae, that - combined - constituted Corpus Iuris Civilis, later reintroduced in its Greek translation by the emperor Leo VI the Wise (866-912) as the Basilika (important inasmuch as it was valid until the fall of the Byzantine empire). As you'll surely find out, even though Justinian during his reign spent lavishly on his projects, he proved himself to be a capable ruler, both externally and internally. His accomplishments might only be surpassed by that of Augustus' and Trajan's. After his death, and in some matters even slightly before that event, there had been noticeable decay in political as well as in everyday life. And yet, Byzantium still managed to prosper under other competent ruler, whose profiles are well-described in the book, alongside thrilling events, such as the sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders among many others.
Treadgold also offers a riveting description of heated theological debates that in some cases seems to have shaken the empire to its very core. His account presents itself as a good exposition of differences between major sects and the official orthodoxy. What is the relation between God and Christ (and the Holy Spirit in later centuries)? That question sparked a debate that lasted for hundreds of years. If you think that Christ was created by the Father and had a beginning in time, you're a follower of a heretic Arian. If, on the other hand, your belief is that Jesus Christ had two loosely united natures, you're a Nestorian. On the other end of the extremity, there's Monophysitism, with a notion that Christ had only one nature: divine. If you think that Christ, after all, had two natures but only one will, it's not official Christianity but a heresy called Monotheletism. There's a delicate distinction between orthodoxy and heresy, and the author draws a fine line for anyone interested in the dispute. It's a pity Treadgold dismissed other influential heresies with only limited deliberation (e.g. Manichaeism, Iconoclasm, Paulicianism, Bogomilism).
What I can't agree with is Treadgold's claim that Christians were persecuted because their religion was distinct from the official one. Ancient Romans were really tolerant of other religions; they had to be since their empire was becoming more and more culturally diverse. Apart from obvious polytheism, they had encountered other monotheist religions before Christianity had become visible so it wasn't a fear of the unknown (e.g. Judaism, Zoroastrianism). They were, however, highly intolerant of groups that tried to undermine the public peace by preaching to disobey earthly pagan authorities and scaring rural communities with images of eternal hell and damnation.
As fascinating as the book clearly is, in the end, my image of the Byzantine Empire is somewhat negative: it seems to have been on the verge of financial catastrophe and military annihilation since its inception. Dotted with a fair number of skilled rulers (Leo I, Zeno, Justinian, emperors of the Macedonian dynasty), Byzantium's history is one of constant struggle of its emperors to self-sustain themselves at all costs, without regard to the state's treasury or constant depredation of society.
Instead of focusing solely on palace intrigues and on overemphasizing minor events, however appealing they might seem, Treadgold draws our attention to matters essential to functioning of a state. In this regard, he gives a very instructive description of a fiscal reform of 498 under the emperor Anastasius, with its chief principle to substitute cash payments for most of the remaining payments in kind, a move first initiated by emperors Constantine I and Theodosius I. That, in turn, changed the situation of frontier soldiers who weren't paid in food anymore and instead started to receive monetary allowances, which stimulated state's economy.
Everyone interested in the reign of one the most skilled Roman emperors, Justinian I, will surely be satisfied, as the emperor receives more than significant attention. The author provides an extensive description of his political, fiscal and theological reforms. Brilliantly described by Treadgold is the securing of the empire's borders, reconquering the former Roman territories and conquering the new ones (temporary and straining though they might've been). Also, you might find interesting the Nika Revolt of 532, when a mob of two rivalling chariot racing factions, the Blues and the Greens, broke out in an open revolt against Justinian, who, after initial setback, managed to subjugate the rebels by use of force of his two loyal generals, Belisarius and Mundus, and cemented power within Constantinople itself. One could only hope for a better treatment of Justinian's four-part legal codifications: the Codex Iustinianus, the Digesta, the Institutiones and the Novellae, that - combined - constituted Corpus Iuris Civilis, later reintroduced in its Greek translation by the emperor Leo VI the Wise (866-912) as the Basilika (important inasmuch as it was valid until the fall of the Byzantine empire). As you'll surely find out, even though Justinian during his reign spent lavishly on his projects, he proved himself to be a capable ruler, both externally and internally. His accomplishments might only be surpassed by that of Augustus' and Trajan's. After his death, and in some matters even slightly before that event, there had been noticeable decay in political as well as in everyday life. And yet, Byzantium still managed to prosper under other competent ruler, whose profiles are well-described in the book, alongside thrilling events, such as the sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders among many others.
Treadgold also offers a riveting description of heated theological debates that in some cases seems to have shaken the empire to its very core. His account presents itself as a good exposition of differences between major sects and the official orthodoxy. What is the relation between God and Christ (and the Holy Spirit in later centuries)? That question sparked a debate that lasted for hundreds of years. If you think that Christ was created by the Father and had a beginning in time, you're a follower of a heretic Arian. If, on the other hand, your belief is that Jesus Christ had two loosely united natures, you're a Nestorian. On the other end of the extremity, there's Monophysitism, with a notion that Christ had only one nature: divine. If you think that Christ, after all, had two natures but only one will, it's not official Christianity but a heresy called Monotheletism. There's a delicate distinction between orthodoxy and heresy, and the author draws a fine line for anyone interested in the dispute. It's a pity Treadgold dismissed other influential heresies with only limited deliberation (e.g. Manichaeism, Iconoclasm, Paulicianism, Bogomilism).
What I can't agree with is Treadgold's claim that Christians were persecuted because their religion was distinct from the official one. Ancient Romans were really tolerant of other religions; they had to be since their empire was becoming more and more culturally diverse. Apart from obvious polytheism, they had encountered other monotheist religions before Christianity had become visible so it wasn't a fear of the unknown (e.g. Judaism, Zoroastrianism). They were, however, highly intolerant of groups that tried to undermine the public peace by preaching to disobey earthly pagan authorities and scaring rural communities with images of eternal hell and damnation.
As fascinating as the book clearly is, in the end, my image of the Byzantine Empire is somewhat negative: it seems to have been on the verge of financial catastrophe and military annihilation since its inception. Dotted with a fair number of skilled rulers (Leo I, Zeno, Justinian, emperors of the Macedonian dynasty), Byzantium's history is one of constant struggle of its emperors to self-sustain themselves at all costs, without regard to the state's treasury or constant depredation of society.
November 7, 2018
Surely the best single-volume history of the late Roman and Byzantine Empire I've read, and perhaps the best one out there, despite being published in 1988. Copiously researched and well-organized, Treadgold balances alternating military/political chapters with economic/social chapters, so there is extensive coverage of not only the expected battles and dynastic cycles, but also the more humanistic aspects, with plentiful maps and tables of statistics on everything from military strength to budgetary woes to population distribution to help the reader keep track of how the Byzantines continuously tinkered with their society for over a thousand years in the face of continuous waves of plagues, invasions, and civil wars. While the Roman Empire will forever be more highly esteemed by laymen for how they steadily assembled their pan-Mediterranean state (everyone loves watching winners conquer one enemy after another), over the course of the book I developed a grudging and then unabashed respect for how the Byzantines did their best to adapt that rigid, ethnocentric, coup-prone Roman governance model to maintain a surprising amount of coherent identity in a multi-ethnic, multi-faith, multifariously-threatening world. They may have failed eventually, but you try creating an empire that lasts for over a millennium!
One of my main thoughts when reading was that I'd been previously been underrating the Great Man theory of history, or at least the ability of powerful individuals to redirect nations on different courses. Treadgold is scrupulously polite towards even plainly inept rulers - he will refrain from more than a few mildly critical adjectives of inarguably terrible emperors, and well-meaning emperors who had circumstances beyond their control wreck their reigns get "he did as best as could be expected given the circumstances" - but it's striking how even the vast machinery of an ancient empire could be utterly upended by the whims of its leader. Peter Turchin's Seshat project, as well as his structural demographic theories of imperiogenesis and imperiopathosis in books like War and Peace and War, remain invaluable for understanding broad historical trajectories and "inevitabilities", but as I read the various expansions under successful emperors like Justinian I, Constantine VII, and Basil II, and the following contractions under unsuccessful emperors like Valens, Phocas, Romanos IV, and many others who ruled for about 10 minutes, I started trying to construct a mental model of the empire's varying health, with the ruler at the top of the pyramid:
- "hard" quantitative factors like GDP, population, territory
- "soft" qualitative factors like religious concord, social unity, "asabiya"
- random accidents and enigmas of chance
- personal qualities of rulers
Obviously no ruler, no matter how personally gifted, could completely prevent a plague, a revolt, or an invasion of Persians, (or Bulgarians, or Serbs, or Arabs, or Turks, or Crusaders, or...), and plenty of perfectly capable individuals suffered grievous misfortunes, yet it was striking how frequently, given the nearly unlimited authority vested in the emperor, their mistakes had vast consequences that took decades or even centuries to correct, if at all. In this the Byzantines were hardly unique, of course, but their exceptionally long existence gives you many more opportunities to watch one emperor carefully save money, reconquer land, and heal religious divisions, only for his idiot son to ruin everything and waste golden opportunities to defend against their enemies. This fundamental instability was exacerbated by their tendency towards conspiracy, famously memorialized today in the adjective "byzantine". Here was one of my favorite incidents of conspiracy, from the year 780 AD, in the midst of the Iconoclasm debate:
"Irene, an orphan in her mid-twenties from the shrunken provincial town of Athens, had keen political instincts, a strong will, and some devoted allies in the bureaucracy. The precariousness of her position seems to have given her a sense of urgency. A month and a half after her husband's death, she foiled a plot, led by the postal logothete and the domestic of the Excubitors, to put Constantine V's second son Nicephorus on the throne."
There's no exact contemporary parallel, but imagine how we'd react if, in the middle of a near-civil war over whether to make flag-burning unconstitutional, Donald Trump suddenly died, leaving Melania as regent for Barron (ignore Ivanka and Tiffany for a moment), and she thwarted a scheme by the head of the Secret Service and the Postmaster General to put Don Jr in the White House by having them all declared felons and exiled to Guam. Now imagine that tended to happen every few decades! Every other major power struggled with the same issues of succession and legitimacy to some degree, but despite their impressive longevity the flaws of the Roman governance model were clearly key to Byzantine difficulties. They may not have ever been able to reconstitute the Roman Empire of old (and in fact they wisely stopped trying to reconquer obviously unattainable lands after a while), but while experiments like the senior/junior emperor system, the creation of the Themes, and professionalization of the bureaucracy gradually made the empire more resilient, up until the very last minute they perpetually had multiple claimants for the throne inviting foreign powers to aid them by promising vast rewards, and these allies would of course then immediately turn on the empire for protection money or simple plunder. It's no way to run a country.
The Byzantine religious controversies, which have earned the rightful scorn of scholars going back to Gibbon, are another great example of unnecessary conflict, given the sheer amount of time wasted and blood spilled over them. Diarmaid McCullough's Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years has a lot of great details on how the idea of a single "Christianity" has always been a fiction, as the Biblical material has been layered on top of an enormous variety of existing Mediterranean religious traditions (for a modern analogy, see the way that indigenous Mexican religious elements like the Virgin of Guadalupe, Santa Muerte, or Maximón have been smoothly and syncretically incorporated into a Catholicism that's not quite the same as in Europe or Africa). So to some extent you would have to expect some major disagreements as diverse traditions chafed under a single unified theology, particularly as the Patriarchs determined orthodoxy more or less independently from the geographically and culturally distant Popes in the west. But to a modern reader it's striking how frequently the empire was nearly brought to its knees at key moments by violent conflicts over arcane controversies that, one thinks, a calmer scholar like Thomas Aquinas would have wasted barely a few pages resolving with some choice Aristotle quotes. Here's a vastly oversimplified cheat sheet I kept for some of the major heresies, in chronological order:
- Arianism - Christ had a separate nature from God, though the two also share one nature in the Trinity, somehow differently than in "correct" Trinitarianism
- Nestorianism - Christ had two natures
- Monophysitism - Christ had one nature
- Monoenergism - Christ had one energy
- Monothelitism - Christ had one will
- Iconoclasm - Images of Christ/God/etc are blasphemous
- Paulicianism - Armenian Gnosticism, taking Christianity back to its mystical roots
- Bogomilism - Bulgarian Gnosticism, taking Christianity back to its mystical roots
- Palamasism - Performing hesychasm (meditative prayer) allows direct experience of the "uncreated" light of the Transfiguration, which is of God yet not the Trinity
Many of those theological controversies acted as synecdoches for those larger questions of cultural identity, of course (as I type this, the Russian Orthodox Church has momentously severed from the Patriarchate of Constantinople over their recognition of a separate Ukrainian Church in response to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which is the biggest split since the Great Schism in 1054), yet I would love to be able to ask the various religious figures of the era exactly what they thought they were accomplishing by launching one acrimonious empire-wide quarrel after another over these openly meaningless nitpicks while various hostile powers slowly closed in; the phrase "quibbling while Rome burns" comes to mind. And that doesn't even cover the political, non-theological controversies that had consequences for religious unity, such as the alternations of strong Patriarch/weak Emperor and weak Patriarch/strong Emperor, or the Patriarch and the Pope fighting over bishop appointments and excommunicating each other out of spite. It's poignant to watch the East and West churches slowly squabble each other into the permanent Great Schism for no real theological reason, periodically attempting half-hearted reunions like a broken-up couple that can't quite bring themselves to move on, repeated Crusades and ecumenical councils achieving nothing but greater recrimination.
But again, whatever criticisms you have of the Byzantines, you have to be impressed by their surprising resilience in the face of continuous threats from all directions. While the western half of the Roman Empire collapsed and faded fewer than two centuries after the division under Diocletian, the eastern half maintained its heritage for a millennium. And what the Byzantines did was arguably harder than what the Romans did: it's very common for a single high-asabiya warlike group to expand their empire until there are no more worlds left to conquer, but it's far more difficult to then stably administer that empire, particularly if it's much more heterogeneous (as it should be, if your wars have gone well), particularly if you're not interested in further expanding your territory, and particularly in a high-risk area with multiple vulnerable frontiers. The Byzantines never really tried to conquer outside of what the Romans had built during the Augustan Age, and aside from occasional attempts like Justinian's to reclaim parts of the ancient west, for the most part they simply tried to maintain their territorial integrity against fairly staggering odds. In some ways the flexibility of Byzantine identity was actually a strength; most but not all Byzantines were Greek, or Orthodox, or followed Byzantine law, or were even necessarily under Byzantine rule, so the movement of the frontiers back and forth was not as immediately traumatic as it could have been. When Greece finally won its eventual independence in the 20th century, that its capital was not at Constantinople and its borders excluded the Ionian coast was due to the expulsion of the Greeks after the 1922 war with Turkey, which easily could have turned out differently, and thus had the collapse of the Ottoman Empire unfolded slightly differently, the entire Aegean might still reflect the political, cultural, and ethnic boundaries of a thousand years ago. There are also other legacies, less prominent but just as enduring, in Russia, Bulgaria, Turkey, Armenia, Italy, and everywhere else that was once part of the empire.
There's too much more to say about the Byzantine Empire, so I will just compliment Treadgold on his intensive research (many of the photos of Byzantine churches are credited to him and his family) and skill at presenting a coherent narrative out of nearly a millennium and a half of history, much of which was built out of inherently unreliable ancient accounts. The analyses of how art, architecture, and literature were affected by the political upheavals were great, my primary complaints being that I wanted more, even if the book would have been swollen to many times its already considerable length. In fact at many points I wished he had digressed a bit more, such as on how Islamic resistance to religious images affected the Christian iconoclasm debate, or the downstream effects of Byzantine missionaries inventing the Cyrillic alphabet, or political relations with the western states, etc, even if those were tangential to the main story. An updated edition would be nice after 30 years, but his history seemed fairly solid, and I'd bet that newer research would only enhance his conclusions. Treadgold is vivid enough at presenting the power struggles to the point where I frequently found myself doing that history nerd thing where you look up from the book and start making completely spurious analogies. This is as good as history gets for me.
One of my main thoughts when reading was that I'd been previously been underrating the Great Man theory of history, or at least the ability of powerful individuals to redirect nations on different courses. Treadgold is scrupulously polite towards even plainly inept rulers - he will refrain from more than a few mildly critical adjectives of inarguably terrible emperors, and well-meaning emperors who had circumstances beyond their control wreck their reigns get "he did as best as could be expected given the circumstances" - but it's striking how even the vast machinery of an ancient empire could be utterly upended by the whims of its leader. Peter Turchin's Seshat project, as well as his structural demographic theories of imperiogenesis and imperiopathosis in books like War and Peace and War, remain invaluable for understanding broad historical trajectories and "inevitabilities", but as I read the various expansions under successful emperors like Justinian I, Constantine VII, and Basil II, and the following contractions under unsuccessful emperors like Valens, Phocas, Romanos IV, and many others who ruled for about 10 minutes, I started trying to construct a mental model of the empire's varying health, with the ruler at the top of the pyramid:
- "hard" quantitative factors like GDP, population, territory
- "soft" qualitative factors like religious concord, social unity, "asabiya"
- random accidents and enigmas of chance
- personal qualities of rulers
Obviously no ruler, no matter how personally gifted, could completely prevent a plague, a revolt, or an invasion of Persians, (or Bulgarians, or Serbs, or Arabs, or Turks, or Crusaders, or...), and plenty of perfectly capable individuals suffered grievous misfortunes, yet it was striking how frequently, given the nearly unlimited authority vested in the emperor, their mistakes had vast consequences that took decades or even centuries to correct, if at all. In this the Byzantines were hardly unique, of course, but their exceptionally long existence gives you many more opportunities to watch one emperor carefully save money, reconquer land, and heal religious divisions, only for his idiot son to ruin everything and waste golden opportunities to defend against their enemies. This fundamental instability was exacerbated by their tendency towards conspiracy, famously memorialized today in the adjective "byzantine". Here was one of my favorite incidents of conspiracy, from the year 780 AD, in the midst of the Iconoclasm debate:
"Irene, an orphan in her mid-twenties from the shrunken provincial town of Athens, had keen political instincts, a strong will, and some devoted allies in the bureaucracy. The precariousness of her position seems to have given her a sense of urgency. A month and a half after her husband's death, she foiled a plot, led by the postal logothete and the domestic of the Excubitors, to put Constantine V's second son Nicephorus on the throne."
There's no exact contemporary parallel, but imagine how we'd react if, in the middle of a near-civil war over whether to make flag-burning unconstitutional, Donald Trump suddenly died, leaving Melania as regent for Barron (ignore Ivanka and Tiffany for a moment), and she thwarted a scheme by the head of the Secret Service and the Postmaster General to put Don Jr in the White House by having them all declared felons and exiled to Guam. Now imagine that tended to happen every few decades! Every other major power struggled with the same issues of succession and legitimacy to some degree, but despite their impressive longevity the flaws of the Roman governance model were clearly key to Byzantine difficulties. They may not have ever been able to reconstitute the Roman Empire of old (and in fact they wisely stopped trying to reconquer obviously unattainable lands after a while), but while experiments like the senior/junior emperor system, the creation of the Themes, and professionalization of the bureaucracy gradually made the empire more resilient, up until the very last minute they perpetually had multiple claimants for the throne inviting foreign powers to aid them by promising vast rewards, and these allies would of course then immediately turn on the empire for protection money or simple plunder. It's no way to run a country.
The Byzantine religious controversies, which have earned the rightful scorn of scholars going back to Gibbon, are another great example of unnecessary conflict, given the sheer amount of time wasted and blood spilled over them. Diarmaid McCullough's Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years has a lot of great details on how the idea of a single "Christianity" has always been a fiction, as the Biblical material has been layered on top of an enormous variety of existing Mediterranean religious traditions (for a modern analogy, see the way that indigenous Mexican religious elements like the Virgin of Guadalupe, Santa Muerte, or Maximón have been smoothly and syncretically incorporated into a Catholicism that's not quite the same as in Europe or Africa). So to some extent you would have to expect some major disagreements as diverse traditions chafed under a single unified theology, particularly as the Patriarchs determined orthodoxy more or less independently from the geographically and culturally distant Popes in the west. But to a modern reader it's striking how frequently the empire was nearly brought to its knees at key moments by violent conflicts over arcane controversies that, one thinks, a calmer scholar like Thomas Aquinas would have wasted barely a few pages resolving with some choice Aristotle quotes. Here's a vastly oversimplified cheat sheet I kept for some of the major heresies, in chronological order:
- Arianism - Christ had a separate nature from God, though the two also share one nature in the Trinity, somehow differently than in "correct" Trinitarianism
- Nestorianism - Christ had two natures
- Monophysitism - Christ had one nature
- Monoenergism - Christ had one energy
- Monothelitism - Christ had one will
- Iconoclasm - Images of Christ/God/etc are blasphemous
- Paulicianism - Armenian Gnosticism, taking Christianity back to its mystical roots
- Bogomilism - Bulgarian Gnosticism, taking Christianity back to its mystical roots
- Palamasism - Performing hesychasm (meditative prayer) allows direct experience of the "uncreated" light of the Transfiguration, which is of God yet not the Trinity
Many of those theological controversies acted as synecdoches for those larger questions of cultural identity, of course (as I type this, the Russian Orthodox Church has momentously severed from the Patriarchate of Constantinople over their recognition of a separate Ukrainian Church in response to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which is the biggest split since the Great Schism in 1054), yet I would love to be able to ask the various religious figures of the era exactly what they thought they were accomplishing by launching one acrimonious empire-wide quarrel after another over these openly meaningless nitpicks while various hostile powers slowly closed in; the phrase "quibbling while Rome burns" comes to mind. And that doesn't even cover the political, non-theological controversies that had consequences for religious unity, such as the alternations of strong Patriarch/weak Emperor and weak Patriarch/strong Emperor, or the Patriarch and the Pope fighting over bishop appointments and excommunicating each other out of spite. It's poignant to watch the East and West churches slowly squabble each other into the permanent Great Schism for no real theological reason, periodically attempting half-hearted reunions like a broken-up couple that can't quite bring themselves to move on, repeated Crusades and ecumenical councils achieving nothing but greater recrimination.
But again, whatever criticisms you have of the Byzantines, you have to be impressed by their surprising resilience in the face of continuous threats from all directions. While the western half of the Roman Empire collapsed and faded fewer than two centuries after the division under Diocletian, the eastern half maintained its heritage for a millennium. And what the Byzantines did was arguably harder than what the Romans did: it's very common for a single high-asabiya warlike group to expand their empire until there are no more worlds left to conquer, but it's far more difficult to then stably administer that empire, particularly if it's much more heterogeneous (as it should be, if your wars have gone well), particularly if you're not interested in further expanding your territory, and particularly in a high-risk area with multiple vulnerable frontiers. The Byzantines never really tried to conquer outside of what the Romans had built during the Augustan Age, and aside from occasional attempts like Justinian's to reclaim parts of the ancient west, for the most part they simply tried to maintain their territorial integrity against fairly staggering odds. In some ways the flexibility of Byzantine identity was actually a strength; most but not all Byzantines were Greek, or Orthodox, or followed Byzantine law, or were even necessarily under Byzantine rule, so the movement of the frontiers back and forth was not as immediately traumatic as it could have been. When Greece finally won its eventual independence in the 20th century, that its capital was not at Constantinople and its borders excluded the Ionian coast was due to the expulsion of the Greeks after the 1922 war with Turkey, which easily could have turned out differently, and thus had the collapse of the Ottoman Empire unfolded slightly differently, the entire Aegean might still reflect the political, cultural, and ethnic boundaries of a thousand years ago. There are also other legacies, less prominent but just as enduring, in Russia, Bulgaria, Turkey, Armenia, Italy, and everywhere else that was once part of the empire.
There's too much more to say about the Byzantine Empire, so I will just compliment Treadgold on his intensive research (many of the photos of Byzantine churches are credited to him and his family) and skill at presenting a coherent narrative out of nearly a millennium and a half of history, much of which was built out of inherently unreliable ancient accounts. The analyses of how art, architecture, and literature were affected by the political upheavals were great, my primary complaints being that I wanted more, even if the book would have been swollen to many times its already considerable length. In fact at many points I wished he had digressed a bit more, such as on how Islamic resistance to religious images affected the Christian iconoclasm debate, or the downstream effects of Byzantine missionaries inventing the Cyrillic alphabet, or political relations with the western states, etc, even if those were tangential to the main story. An updated edition would be nice after 30 years, but his history seemed fairly solid, and I'd bet that newer research would only enhance his conclusions. Treadgold is vivid enough at presenting the power struggles to the point where I frequently found myself doing that history nerd thing where you look up from the book and start making completely spurious analogies. This is as good as history gets for me.
April 1, 2015
This is a deeply impressive book. Probably only for those who are very interested in the history of the Byzantine Empire, but that includes me. The book covers 1200 years of history from Diocletian in the late 200s to the Fall of Constantinople in 1453. I have read chronological histories of the empire before, but none of them go into this level of detail. The chapters alternate. He will run through the emperors and their works for a particular period, and then he will discuss the society of that period in more detail in a following chapter. This approach manages to keep things moving, but also give a real sense of how things were changing outside of the context of one greedy, ruling and often brutal man.
Treadgold follows a number of metrics through the centuries. Administrative structures, the state of the arts and literature, and his estimates of the budget and military are all discussed in every era. I am no expert, but I found it all quite convincing. It's interesting how comprehensive it is possible to be when the sources are few and the era is long ago. The book is a massive doorstop of a tome, but can you imagine attempting to tell the last 1000 years of European history at this level of detail with a single book? Or even the past 100? Treadgold's account of Byzantium is one of great change, but it is also one of incredible stasis. The last emperor in 1453 claimed an unbroken succession descending down from Augustus in the 40s BC, and he wasn't wrong.
Treadgold follows a number of metrics through the centuries. Administrative structures, the state of the arts and literature, and his estimates of the budget and military are all discussed in every era. I am no expert, but I found it all quite convincing. It's interesting how comprehensive it is possible to be when the sources are few and the era is long ago. The book is a massive doorstop of a tome, but can you imagine attempting to tell the last 1000 years of European history at this level of detail with a single book? Or even the past 100? Treadgold's account of Byzantium is one of great change, but it is also one of incredible stasis. The last emperor in 1453 claimed an unbroken succession descending down from Augustus in the 40s BC, and he wasn't wrong.
August 30, 2024
Its so fucking comprehensive yet super easy to read, its honestly crazy how Treadgold manages to cover 1169 years worth of narrative history without getting bogged down in any particular age or era. He did a good job trying to give each century due justice in terms of information and I appreciate he doesn't limit his scope to straight military history either
January 29, 2022
Though Treadgold covers over a thousand years of history, it never gets difficult to continue reading. His digestion of dynastic struggles, military happenings, economic and cultural minutia, and religious nuance all come together into a fast paced yet detailed narrative. That narrative is, on top of all of that, excellently written with a balance of deep dives and lighthearted anecdotes.
This is an ideal work for an intermediate student of history. Treadgold does so much of the hard work of primary-source-reading while not keeping the reader out of all the fun to be had in that hard work. I cannot recommend this book enough.
This is an ideal work for an intermediate student of history. Treadgold does so much of the hard work of primary-source-reading while not keeping the reader out of all the fun to be had in that hard work. I cannot recommend this book enough.
June 18, 2021
Ripassino fatto.
Per quanto riguarda il giudizio, rimane leggermente inferiore all'Ostrogorsky per qualità letteraria. Ma a livello informativo è eccezionale.
Per quanto riguarda il giudizio, rimane leggermente inferiore all'Ostrogorsky per qualità letteraria. Ma a livello informativo è eccezionale.
February 23, 2023
This is a very lengthy book about a very lengthy empire. Too often, it leans into dead-king (well, dead emperor) history, but there is a lot of meet to it as well.
Diocletian was a mediocre general but an excellent manager. He also had no son, which made it possible for him to plan his system. He also standardized a new tax system. The civil service doubled under him and the army went up 50% as well. Rome was essentially just a province of the empire.
Post-Constantine, the east built up the city of Constantinople. You get the famous emperors and leaders and barbarians as we transition from Roman times to Byzantine times. The East/West boundary was mostly (but not entirely) linguistic. Greek philosophy was already trending towards monotheism. The cities increased population. Celibacy was promoted for the devout. The West finally falls, but the Byzantines improve from 457 to 518.
Justin was the first Latin speaking emperor in the East since Theodorus I. Justinian has his highs and lows. There are big losses and retrenchmen later on. Justinian's conquests made the empire more divserse. Syria and Egypt are at odds with Constantinople over theology (all that Monophysite stuff I can never undersstand). The center of the empire is increasingly Hellenized. Egypt is REALLY hurt by the palague. There is increased cults of saints, which oddly enough reduces the respect shown to living holy men. Some Greek classics scholars are still pagan. By 600 AD, pagan literature is extinct, though. Literature comes to resemble spoken Greek instead. The plague hits in 541. 19 million in the empire in 540, a 20% increase since 457. Two-thirds of the capitol dies (!) in the plague. By 610, it's weaker than in 457 - sure, larger, but a weaker hold.
Heraclius fights the Persians but then comes the Arabs. There's a comeback under Emperor Constans, who rules in his own name by ages 13/14. He reorganizes the army into themes, which will hold up for centuries. Enter the Bulgars. Arabs try to take Constaninople in 717. Leo III fights back and kicks off iconoclasm. The 7th and 8th centuries gave calamities but also showed resiliance. They kept half the size of their military. Themes became the chief adminstrative units. Religious/cultural connections in the empire increase as they lose territory. The government is reorganized and soldiers are paid with land. The Senate still exists (!) but rarely meets. By the 700s, education is down, hurting the bureacracy. Tax farming is more common. The reduced admnistration is simplified. Religious leaders stauts is up. They have the first formal code of canon law. Pagan professors are probably gone by 640. They stop copying classical manuscripts in classical Greek. The best Greek writers are now in the Caliphate. They're still doing better than the West. The economy contracts as they lose 2/3 of the land from 610-780. Trade is down. BUT they still maintain a large army, from 100K in 565 to 100K in 641. The economy is less monetized and has less trade, less urban areas, butt a much more militarized society surviving.
Irene is the first woman to rule in her own name, and helps end iconoclasm - or Theodora does the latter. Leo VI marries four times. There's a famine in the 920s. They gain more territory. Olga visits from Russia. Basil the Bulgar Slayer caps off a revival. They wed the western leades in 976. Vlaidmir of Kiev converts. Some Balkans and Armenia are recovered. Society is more unified along Greek and Orthodox lines. They're in really good shapein 1025. They were never into missionary work. They're risen from 7 million people in 780 to 12 million by 1025. Cities and farming both prosper. Tax revenue is up.
There is admnistrative drift and the Gulbars revive. The army decays. The Ottomans beat the shit out of them. Robert Guiscard is a threat. Then comes the First Crusade, which is also seen as a threat. They're still #1 in the Mediterranean (arguably) as late as the 1140s. An emperor has a Hungarian mom. Things drift and then comes 1204 and all that. Oddly enough, culture is up in these year. They use more mercenaries. The land they lost is mostly the poorer lands so doesn't as hurt as much as it looks on a map. Cities are prosperous and farm yields up. From 12 million in 1025 to 10 million in 1150.
There are successor states with actually durable dynasties. Thre different resistance emperors at once exist. They retake the capitol. There is Genoa and Venice. Turks advance. The plague hits in the 1340s. The imperial system is breaking down completely. The Turks win battles and the emperor accepts vassalage status in the 1370s. Timur the Lame distracts the Turks (boy and how!). Then the Ottomans have a civil war. 1453: the fall. 1461 - last surviving area taken. They were very Greek in the lateer years. Greeek culture drew them together in crises. The West calls them the King of the Greeks. Relations with the Ottomans had been decent for 150 years. The state, army, and navy all declined. Their culture doesn't end with 1453.
Lots of info in the book, as one might imagine.
Diocletian was a mediocre general but an excellent manager. He also had no son, which made it possible for him to plan his system. He also standardized a new tax system. The civil service doubled under him and the army went up 50% as well. Rome was essentially just a province of the empire.
Post-Constantine, the east built up the city of Constantinople. You get the famous emperors and leaders and barbarians as we transition from Roman times to Byzantine times. The East/West boundary was mostly (but not entirely) linguistic. Greek philosophy was already trending towards monotheism. The cities increased population. Celibacy was promoted for the devout. The West finally falls, but the Byzantines improve from 457 to 518.
Justin was the first Latin speaking emperor in the East since Theodorus I. Justinian has his highs and lows. There are big losses and retrenchmen later on. Justinian's conquests made the empire more divserse. Syria and Egypt are at odds with Constantinople over theology (all that Monophysite stuff I can never undersstand). The center of the empire is increasingly Hellenized. Egypt is REALLY hurt by the palague. There is increased cults of saints, which oddly enough reduces the respect shown to living holy men. Some Greek classics scholars are still pagan. By 600 AD, pagan literature is extinct, though. Literature comes to resemble spoken Greek instead. The plague hits in 541. 19 million in the empire in 540, a 20% increase since 457. Two-thirds of the capitol dies (!) in the plague. By 610, it's weaker than in 457 - sure, larger, but a weaker hold.
Heraclius fights the Persians but then comes the Arabs. There's a comeback under Emperor Constans, who rules in his own name by ages 13/14. He reorganizes the army into themes, which will hold up for centuries. Enter the Bulgars. Arabs try to take Constaninople in 717. Leo III fights back and kicks off iconoclasm. The 7th and 8th centuries gave calamities but also showed resiliance. They kept half the size of their military. Themes became the chief adminstrative units. Religious/cultural connections in the empire increase as they lose territory. The government is reorganized and soldiers are paid with land. The Senate still exists (!) but rarely meets. By the 700s, education is down, hurting the bureacracy. Tax farming is more common. The reduced admnistration is simplified. Religious leaders stauts is up. They have the first formal code of canon law. Pagan professors are probably gone by 640. They stop copying classical manuscripts in classical Greek. The best Greek writers are now in the Caliphate. They're still doing better than the West. The economy contracts as they lose 2/3 of the land from 610-780. Trade is down. BUT they still maintain a large army, from 100K in 565 to 100K in 641. The economy is less monetized and has less trade, less urban areas, butt a much more militarized society surviving.
Irene is the first woman to rule in her own name, and helps end iconoclasm - or Theodora does the latter. Leo VI marries four times. There's a famine in the 920s. They gain more territory. Olga visits from Russia. Basil the Bulgar Slayer caps off a revival. They wed the western leades in 976. Vlaidmir of Kiev converts. Some Balkans and Armenia are recovered. Society is more unified along Greek and Orthodox lines. They're in really good shapein 1025. They were never into missionary work. They're risen from 7 million people in 780 to 12 million by 1025. Cities and farming both prosper. Tax revenue is up.
There is admnistrative drift and the Gulbars revive. The army decays. The Ottomans beat the shit out of them. Robert Guiscard is a threat. Then comes the First Crusade, which is also seen as a threat. They're still #1 in the Mediterranean (arguably) as late as the 1140s. An emperor has a Hungarian mom. Things drift and then comes 1204 and all that. Oddly enough, culture is up in these year. They use more mercenaries. The land they lost is mostly the poorer lands so doesn't as hurt as much as it looks on a map. Cities are prosperous and farm yields up. From 12 million in 1025 to 10 million in 1150.
There are successor states with actually durable dynasties. Thre different resistance emperors at once exist. They retake the capitol. There is Genoa and Venice. Turks advance. The plague hits in the 1340s. The imperial system is breaking down completely. The Turks win battles and the emperor accepts vassalage status in the 1370s. Timur the Lame distracts the Turks (boy and how!). Then the Ottomans have a civil war. 1453: the fall. 1461 - last surviving area taken. They were very Greek in the lateer years. Greeek culture drew them together in crises. The West calls them the King of the Greeks. Relations with the Ottomans had been decent for 150 years. The state, army, and navy all declined. Their culture doesn't end with 1453.
Lots of info in the book, as one might imagine.
January 30, 2025
Dr Treadgold did his doctoral work at Harvard back when Harvard still cared about Byzantine studies. He is a formidable scholar. This is a wonderful book.
Warren Treadgold’s A History of the Byzantine State and Society is a comprehensive and scholarly account of Byzantium, spanning from its Roman origins to its fall in 1453. Unlike many histories that focus primarily on politics or military events, Treadgold provides a balanced view that integrates political, social, economic, and religious developments. His meticulous research and engaging narrative make the book both informative and accessible, even for readers new to Byzantine history.
One of the book’s strengths is its depth—Treadgold explores not just emperors and battles but also the administrative structure, cultural achievements, and daily life of Byzantines. He presents a nuanced analysis of how the empire survived for over a thousand years, adapting to crises while preserving Roman traditions. His discussions of religious conflicts, economic structures, and military reforms add depth to the traditional political narrative.
While the book is well-researched, some readers may find its level of detail overwhelming, and its length (over 1,000 pages) may not suit casual readers. Nonetheless, for anyone seeking a thorough and authoritative account of Byzantium, Treadgold’s work remains an invaluable resource. It is essential reading for students, historians, and anyone interested in the legacy of the Eastern Roman Empire.
Warren Treadgold’s A History of the Byzantine State and Society is a comprehensive and scholarly account of Byzantium, spanning from its Roman origins to its fall in 1453. Unlike many histories that focus primarily on politics or military events, Treadgold provides a balanced view that integrates political, social, economic, and religious developments. His meticulous research and engaging narrative make the book both informative and accessible, even for readers new to Byzantine history.
One of the book’s strengths is its depth—Treadgold explores not just emperors and battles but also the administrative structure, cultural achievements, and daily life of Byzantines. He presents a nuanced analysis of how the empire survived for over a thousand years, adapting to crises while preserving Roman traditions. His discussions of religious conflicts, economic structures, and military reforms add depth to the traditional political narrative.
While the book is well-researched, some readers may find its level of detail overwhelming, and its length (over 1,000 pages) may not suit casual readers. Nonetheless, for anyone seeking a thorough and authoritative account of Byzantium, Treadgold’s work remains an invaluable resource. It is essential reading for students, historians, and anyone interested in the legacy of the Eastern Roman Empire.
November 21, 2019
Warren Treadgold's history of the Byzantine Empire can be best described as a long summary of the empire over its 1000+ year existence. From the early split of the Roman Empire all the way to the fall of the Trebizond the book goes through a lot of history. And this is both good and bad.
The good part is we get a synopsis of the different wars, religious controversies, and imperial reigns of the different emperors and empresses. This is also the down side of this book. The reader does not get a true depth of each of the subject or developments in adjacent areas next to the empire except for some developments happening in Bulgaria, Italy, and the Frankish kingdoms. For the in-depth researcher, this can leave one disappointed.
One extra bonus at the end of the book is the discussion of the fusion of Greek and Byzantine identity and the rise of the Greek (Hellenist) state. Here, too, there is not a lot of depth but one gets a sense from the author that this was part of an overarching idea that they were getting at.
Overall. it is a good 'highlight reel' of Byzantine History. It can serve as a decent primer but one needs much more subsequent readings to much more fully appreciate this empire.
The good part is we get a synopsis of the different wars, religious controversies, and imperial reigns of the different emperors and empresses. This is also the down side of this book. The reader does not get a true depth of each of the subject or developments in adjacent areas next to the empire except for some developments happening in Bulgaria, Italy, and the Frankish kingdoms. For the in-depth researcher, this can leave one disappointed.
One extra bonus at the end of the book is the discussion of the fusion of Greek and Byzantine identity and the rise of the Greek (Hellenist) state. Here, too, there is not a lot of depth but one gets a sense from the author that this was part of an overarching idea that they were getting at.
Overall. it is a good 'highlight reel' of Byzantine History. It can serve as a decent primer but one needs much more subsequent readings to much more fully appreciate this empire.
March 6, 2025
This is an excellent single volume history of the Eastern Roman Empire that manages to yield a vast amount of information without getting too bogged down in minutiae. I found it to be a good companion piece to The New Roman Empire by Anthony Kaldellis. Both authors are very readable, yet they each approach the empire from slightly different perspectives, thus ending up with slightly different conclusions along the way.
Some of the information in Treadgold's book has been challenged in more recent scholarship, but for the most part his study of Byzantium holds up extremely well.
Some of the information in Treadgold's book has been challenged in more recent scholarship, but for the most part his study of Byzantium holds up extremely well.
October 24, 2016
This is a huge book but in my view for non-professionals who are interested to know more about Byzantine Empire it is a very good and complete intro.
It covers both its political history and to some degree its social aspects, especially its religious history. In fact, it is hard to find any other country where the nuanced religious questions mattered so much for the society as they did in Byzantium.
http://bookidealist.blogspot.com/2016...
It covers both its political history and to some degree its social aspects, especially its religious history. In fact, it is hard to find any other country where the nuanced religious questions mattered so much for the society as they did in Byzantium.
http://bookidealist.blogspot.com/2016...
September 14, 2020
A strong and coherent single-volume history of the Byzantine Empire both as a political state and as a cultural and religious society. Treadgold's text is readable if occasionally a little dense; it probably also doesn't help that many of the numerous civil wars feature multiple would-be emperors with the same first names!
If you have an interest in reading about the Byzantine Empire - which was after all one of the longest-lived states in history - this is definitely worth your time.
If you have an interest in reading about the Byzantine Empire - which was after all one of the longest-lived states in history - this is definitely worth your time.
April 21, 2020
Like George Ostrogorsky's history, this new classic history of the Later and Medieval Roman Empire is breathtaking and thorough. Wondering if Treadgold and Operation Treadstone (from the Jason Bourne series) have anything in common. Nothing like reading non-fiction history to sharpen the mind and inform the soul.
October 28, 2023
The author has done a fantastic job of documenting every war, rebellion, murder, blinding, deposition, etc. in the long history of the eastern Roman empire. But given its length and details, this is only for the very serious student.
August 1, 2025
Comprehensive story of the Byzantine empire. Chapters generally alternate between narrative history and overview of society and economy. History does focus much on lives and impacts of various Emperors and key Generals vs. other officials and people.
August 25, 2025
Awfully long for the treatment of the Crusades to feel rushed, though the rump states phase of 1204-1261 was probably more consequential to the final collapse than the final sacking in 1453. And then the conclusion was weird- the diversity bit was a non-sequitur. Though I like diversity.
July 10, 2018
The definitive one-volume history of the Byzantine Empire. Eminently readable. A fascinating sweep of history.
November 23, 2018
A great read, a broad focus on both society and rulers. Well written as well, really enjoyed it
November 27, 2018
A great overview of Byzantine history.
December 29, 2020
This is a good book on Byzantium. It did not, however, explain why the same form of government persisted for the entire length of its existence. Gibbon really didn't have an explanation for it either. More maps would have been helpful.
January 22, 2021
Epic study of Byzantium, combining the secular and spiritual politics into a broad narrative of empire. Shocking how quickly a society can collapse.
June 21, 2024
3.8
Although this is a 800ish page book (without index, bibliography, etc.) it isn't as detailed as expected, this is a very schematic narration centered around imperial succession and dynastic changes. The "society" sections don't offer much detail and sometimes 'societal' aspects are put aside for military or political ones instead. Although by itself it's a very good introduction, this still needs complementary readings to be on par with more contemporary historiography.
Although this is a 800ish page book (without index, bibliography, etc.) it isn't as detailed as expected, this is a very schematic narration centered around imperial succession and dynastic changes. The "society" sections don't offer much detail and sometimes 'societal' aspects are put aside for military or political ones instead. Although by itself it's a very good introduction, this still needs complementary readings to be on par with more contemporary historiography.
March 31, 2016
Rome may have fallen in 476, but her empire did not. In the east, the rump empire ruled from Constantinople lived on for almost another 1,000 years. Over that time, it evolved a culture quite distinct and different from the empire of Augustus, or even that of Diocletian or Constantine. Christian, Greek-speaking, different in outlook and ideology, the Byzantine empire nonetheless carried the legacy of the ancient world into the high Middle Ages. I became fascinated by Byzantium in college, when I first really started looking at that remnant of Rome that warranted a page or two in my world history texts. It is a travesty that it isn't studied more, this western civilization that never knew a dark age, where Homer was never not being read. It is a thrilling story, too. When the West fell, the East stabilized, grew under Justinian, nearly fell to Persia in the 7th century, rising again just before the tide of Islam nearly swamped it. Against all odds, it held on for centuries of crisis before rising to again become the strongest Western power in the 10th and 11th centuries before governmental rot and weak leadership led to the loss of Anatolia. But then it rose again under Alexius I and his successors, finding some precarious stability before the horror of the Fourth Crusade destroyed the empire in 1204... But only until 1261, when it rose again, if only for a couple of centuries before the Turks finally did it in. Really, it is a remarkable story. Treadgold's great survey is easily the best work on the general history of the empire that I have read. Quite up to date, still, an magnificently readable, I am in awe of this work. I am so glad that the great History of Byzantium podcast rekindled my interest in the subject, if only because it got me to read this. Not only is a wonderfully written book, but it is a very insightful one. I feel there is so much I understand better than I ever did before. If you have any interest in the subject, don't let the size of the book dissuade you. It's completely worth the effort.
October 15, 2014
It is the first book I've read about Byzantium. Although I've been warned that it's not a good one for starters (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...) yet I wanted to prime my brain about the empire and have a good sense of it. I believe this is not a bad approach because I can always re-read it. I'm going to read Byzantium: The Surprising Life Of A Medieval Empire, Sailing from Byzantium: How a Lost Empire Shaped the World and A Social History of Byzantium hoping to make connections between this book and those books.
March 17, 2025
Treadgold's A History of the Byzantine State and Society is the definitive work where summarizing the modern understanding of Byzantium is concerned. Although a rather thick volume, it is a relatively approachable read which nevertheless gives all the necessary information to understand the Byzantine Empire over its thousand-year history. Good for the casual student of history, great for the college or grad school aspiring historian.
July 7, 2009
This book totally changed my perspective. I always thought the Roman Empire ended when Rome was sacked in whatever year that was. Turns out Constantine had moved the capital of the empire to his new city on the edge of Europe and it wasn't sacked at all for quite a while. The "Romans" kept their empire running along until 1453.
January 6, 2016
Like most Americans, I did not know much about medieval Eastern Europe, only that the Roman Empire somehow remained in the area and that they were taken over by the Turks. When I would look up at Russian-language signs I would recognize Greek letters from schooldays, and wonder how they got there. This easy-to-read book helped to fill in a lot of gaps in my historical knowledge of that region.
August 3, 2022
This book is my benchmark for Byzantine history - the more academic counterpoint to the more popular books of Norwich. For a history text written mostly for historians, it is exceptionally clear and readable. Read Norwich first, then get into this one.
February 5, 2015
Lo and behold, what marvelous gift did I get for Christmas? This massive, thick, heavy, wonderful history of my favourite empire! Hurray! I started it this morning.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews