Basil II and the Governance of Empire (976-1025) by Catherine Holmes is an interesting but difficult study on the Byzantine Empire of one of the greatest emperors of Roman/Byzantine history. To really understand it, one would have to have read all or most of the chronicle of John Skylitzes (plus that of other Byzantine chroniclers and historians of the period from the late 900s into the 1200s). Holmes has a number of interesting ideas about the writing of Skylitzes's chronicle and the political/social conditions of late 11th century Byzantium that shaped his work. Supposedly, part of the reason he overstated the importance of Bardas Skleros is because one of his sources was a pro-Skleros source. He also overestimates the importance of various ancestors of prominent/aristocratic families who were not important until the reign of Alexios Komnenos or John Komnenos.
Holmes tries to use non-Byzantine sources that do cover Basil II's reign (Yahya Ibn Said, Stephen of Taron, some others) but it is rather remarkable how little has survived that covers, in detail, the reign of Basil II. The guy who completed the conquest of Bulgaria and extended the Empire the furthest east/northeast it had been in centuries...and we have so few detailed, internal sources on him. Skylitzes is partly unreliable as a source due to his reliance on pro-Skleros materials, his telescoped passages which often lack dates, and his willingness to modify some details to further the political agenda of his own time in the court of Alexios Komnenos.
Ultimately, a lot of what Holmes is saying seems very conjectural, but she wisely limits her analysis to what can be corroborated by narrative sources, sigillographical evidence, and non-Byzantine sources. It does seem quite likely that Skylitzes highlighted and exaggerated the role of ancestors of contemporary elites (late 11th century) of Byzantium's political system in the wars in the Balkans just to highlight the role of aristocratic cooperation with the imperial court for the success of Byzantium. Similarly, Skylitzes's method for composing his chronicle does suggest one must use it extremely carefully to truly make sense of what transpired in the Balkans or anywhere else during the reign of Basil II.
Holmes is also worth reading for her insightful commentary on Byzantine historiography and various themes in the study of medieval Byzantium. For example, questing one's facile agreement with past scholarship on a strict genre separation of chronicles and histories. Not all Byzantine chroniclers were monks who emphasized divine providence and avoided classicizing rhetoric or style. Just as not all Byzantine "historians" wrote in fine Attic Greek and modeled themselves on Thucydides or ancient historians. Furthermore, Holmes presents a mostly persuasive case for understanding imperial administration on the eastern and western frontiers as one in which Constantinople relied more on tributary relations (in the east for sure) while devolving local matters on indigenous notables or political actors, only later in Basil's reign sending more officials from Constantinople. Likewise, one finds her reading of the legislation against the Powerful and Basil's interests in presenting the image of omnipotence while allowing much local autonomy a convincing analysis of his administration. For the conditions of Byzantium and its neighbors in the 10th and early 11th centuries, Basil II represented the apogee of that system of imperial rhetoric, control of the army and institutions, and acceptance of the reality of distant frontier governance that was sadly almost destroyed in less than a century after his reign.
