Byzantium: The Apogee

We finally finished the second volume of Norwich's Byzantium. As the title indicates, it covers the apogee of the Byzantine Empire, with occasional crises, coups, bad emperors, and the end of the conflict over icons. We see the Empire becoming more and more influential and important in the Balkans and parts of Syria and the East. But by the end of the volume, the Byzantine Empire is losing much of Anatolia to the Seljuk Turks while losing Apulia and Balkan states. If only Basil II had sired a male heir, or if only Romanus (or those who overthrew him after Manzikert) maintained the truce with the Seljuk sultan. If only Byzantium found a way to combine the best of the military aristocracy and civil administration to ensure stability, continuity, and protection or even expansion of imperial territory. Alas, the Empire continued to struggle with problems of succession and civil versus military elite while squandering the best accomplishments of the Macedonian dynasty. True, Norwich acknowledges intellectual, religious, cultural, and artistic achievements of this era between Empress Irene and Alexius Komnenos. But even at its apogee, it is not hard to see why any outstanding emperors were often undone by their successors, rivals, and perhaps over-reliance on foreign mercenaries and states to suppress revolts or coups. The perennial internal conflicts and weaknesses of Byzantium make it easy to understand why some of its most seminal conflicts or crises did not have to be so. Perhaps the Empire could have even lived on as a stronger power in Syria, Anatolia, Armenia, and the Balkans, with an emphasis on retaining Asia Minor and the Balkans.

Byzantium: The Early Centuries

Norwich's rich narrative history of the Byzantine Empire is known for its questionable accuracy. It is definitely outdated, too, in its rather politically incorrect and denigrating remarks on some of the so-called barbarian peoples, particularly the Huns, Turkic peoples, and nomadic Central Asians. He may, at times, be too willing to support Gibbon's contentions. Yet, in spite of its flaws, Norwich wrote an endlessly entertaining history of the pivotal first 5 centuries of the Empire, showing how the Empire derived many of its institutions and practices from the Roman foundation but developed into something new, distinct, and historically significant. While some of the ground covered in the text, especially the reign of Justinian, which has occupied the attention of this blog, was quite familiar to us, it was very enlightening to learn more about the specific reigns of the various predecessors and successors to Justinian. It is easier to see and why Arab Muslims were able to so quickly takeover large chunks of the Empire in light of the numerous internal conflicts and religious divisions. It is hard not to cheer for Byzantium, as Norwich does, as the reader finds oneself overly invested in the future of the Empire. The tragedy of Heraclius, for instance, or the frustrated ambitions of Justinian or Justinian II make for great history.