Norwich's Byzantium

I am reasonably informed when it comes to the history of the Byzantine Empire and yet that said, its 1100 year history is complex and is worth revisiting from time to time. I've read several books on it in the past but one I've never tackled is Norwich's well known and much acclaimed three volume history.

I was not prepared at this time to 'take it on' and yet I did recently procure his concise one volume 'Short History' published in the late 1990's. I have to say I was rather disappointed and not even quite to Justinian I'm actually putting it down and giving up. It's not something I do very often and yet Norwich's volume is by my reckoning (and for my purposes) a waste of time.

I understand that to cover such a large span of history in one volume is going to be difficult and a lot of things are going to have to be set aside and yet to my mind the book possesses some fatal flaws that have caused me to abandon it entirely.

History is certainly more than just names and dates. Merely memorising these facts will not give you a grasp of the narrative and yet at the same time they serve a purpose. For me, dates are important because they help me to relate events. I acknowledge not everyone is able to do this and yet once you start to built a grid in your mind, it starts becoming easy to plug things in, connect dots and tie events together. The dates alone won't do this but they help in building a chronological framework.

I would think the late Norwich would have wanted his readers to be enticed and that his abbreviated history would stoke an interest in further exploration of the subject but the way in which the popular work is written, this becomes almost impossible.

Apart from what I consider to be at times insufferable prose coupled with a patronising but often misguided commentary the book contains numerous flaws and some startling omissions. In addition to merely focusing on royal intrigues and topical commentary he glosses over the Battle of Adrianople in the year 378. Now he may have considered it to be relatively unimportant when related to the events that took place afterword but most historians consider the battle to be of great historical significance. You cannot understand the sacking of Rome in 410 without addressing what happened at Adrianople.

Norwich doesn't consider it to be essential. Fine, but to mention the battle in passing without even mentioning the name and date? How is someone supposed to learn more when they're given nothing to go on? I know about Adrianople but many won't and if reading Norwich they will most certainly remain ignorant.

Later during the time of Theodosius I, he mentioned a battle 'near Trieste' which caused me to frown. I thought he might be describing the Battle of the Frigidus, the famous engagement in which the Bora winds played a significant part. This is why I wanted to review the history. I couldn't remember exactly when the battle took place (394) and its circumstances but I remembered the winds and that it took place in Slovenia, near the modern day Italian border. While technically somewhat near Trieste, the description is misleading and since Norwich doesn't name the battle, unless you already have some knowledge of the history, how is one to know?   

After the Frigidus let down, I tucked my notes inside and set the book on a pile destined for the second-hand shop. I have other histories but I'm actually glad I picked this one up. Any desire I had to read his three volume set has been eradicated and so I no longer need to be burdened by seeing it in the library or someplace else. I will put his name on the list alongside other authors like Colin Thubron and Jacques Ellul, writers who cover topics that interest me and yet their style and ideological commentary render their works (by my estimation) unreadable and leave me frustrated and robbed of time.

Though it grieves me to say it, if someone is coming to Byzantium with almost no background, try Lars Brownsworth's Lost to the West: The Forgotten Byzantine Empire That Rescued Western Civilization.  I don't agree with a lot of Brownsworth's opinions but he does a good job with the basic history and he has a sense of discretion when discussing the salacious history of so-called 'Christian' Byzantium. Most authors seem to relish the filth and scandal and make the books unreadable for children and teens. The older authors had a way of conveying what happened but doing so by utilising careful language. You got the point but the way it was worded it would pass over the heads of younger and uninformed audiences. Christians used to understand and appreciate this but nowadays secular historians (in keeping with the culture) lack decorum and Evangelicals seem to revel in showing everyone how culturally hip they are. Almost for that reason alone I praise Brownsworth.