audiobook A Concise History of Byzantium (European History in Perspective) by Warren Treadgold in History

Review

13 of 17 people found the following review helpful. An Alternate to NorwichBy A CustomerThis book covers Byzantine history from 285 to 1453 at the rate of about 5 years per page; and in my view does a solid job of it. Obviously; many details are omitted; though I suspect anyone new to the subject might feel there is an overwhelming amount of detail. Prof. Treadgold writes in his usual no-frills scholarly style; which I prefer to the more lively style of Norwich. Despite the style; this book does not include much scholarly apparatus--most notably there are no footnotes. The book is organized into 40 sections; on average about 6 pages long. There are two introductory sections and two concluding sections. The core of the book consists of the 36 sections between; divided into 6 chapters; each chapter covering a period of Byzantine history. The chapters are composed of 3 to 5 narrative sections always followed by a section on society and one on culture. The second page of each chapter has a (very good) map taken from Prof. Treadgold's longer work. There are 12 black-and-white plates. There is only one chart in the book and it presents statistics for area control; population; revenue; and army size at 13 points during the Empire's history. A graph repeats the area information. There is a list of rulers appended; and a 16 page index. The book emphazises military fortunes; emperor actions (or lack thereof); and religious disputes. I appreciated the emphasis on military afairs; but others might not. The overall viewpoint is the empire as seen from Constantinople. This is not an anecdotal approach to history; none of the colorful but dubious legends are even mentioned (no blind Belisarius). And; for example; Prof. Treadgold's sober approach to the reign of Justinian II is in marked contrast to Lord Norwich's approach. Which approach you prefer is a matter of taste. I much prefer the Treadgold approach; but still felt I couldn't rate this book 5 stars. I expect most people would find it a little dry; and the facts come perhaps too thick and fast. But on the other hand; I also noticed a couple of omissions that I think even a beginner would notice: the death year of Belisarius is not stated; and while Prof. Treadgold very neatly summarizes Byzantine Spain as "never much more than a set of embattled outposts"; he does not complete the thought with something like "which were all lost by the mid 620's"; and it can only be deduced from the book's maps that they were lost by 780. Minor points perhaps; but not the perfection I expected from Prof. Treadgold. Perhaps I hold him to too high a standard! But I will conclude by noting that I plan to start rereading the book right away.8 of 10 people found the following review helpful. Good short overview of Byzantium historyBy Derek LawIt seems like this is the only English book out there that summarizes Byzantine history using latest scholarly research.The author's primary interest is in the revivals declines that happened during the long Byzantine history. In a way; he is still responding to Gibbons' history. I think this is important to keep in mind when reading this book.The writing style is clear; and the sections are very evenly divided. As such; besides being a good read; this book provides good pointers for further reading in Byzantine history.17 of 19 people found the following review helpful. Very Good anyalitical historyBy Tom MunroThis is a very good although brief little book. Byzantium is the name given to the part of the Roman Empire which survived the collapse of the West. Those who lived in it would have known themselves as Romans and Byzantium is very much an artificial name thought up after the event by scholars who had something of a prejudice against the Eastern Empire. This book is a strongly argued rebuttal of that position.The historian who has shaped the popular view of the Roman Empire is Gibbon. His rather long work explores a theme. That theme is that the Roman Empire reached its peak when its members were pagan and immersed in the values of a classical civilisation. The conversion to Christianity changed the nature and structure of the empire and led to its decline.This book broadly suggests that this view is poppycock and it uses a statistical and analytical approach to prove its point. Broadly what is argued is that the reason for the decline of Rome was bound up in the nature of the imperial system in 200 onwards. The basis of the authority of the Emperor was the support of the army. The army in turn consisted of troops who were generally non-roman. Although the Empire was nominally the strongest power in Europe at the time its internal authority was subject to fragmentation and it was this which led to the collapse of the Empire in the West.In the East a similar thing happened. However the Emperors were gradually able to re-assert civil power over the military. In addition it was also possible to build a common culture based on the Greek language and Christianity which unified the Empire and gave those who lived in it a common identity.Rather than declining the Eastern Empire was able under Justinian to go on the offensive and to re-conquer Africa and Italy. Whilst the Empire was to suffer reverses it lasted to 1200 and was still one of the strongest powers in Europe in 1000.This book uses statistics on the revenue of the empire; the size of its army and the extent of its territory to prove it's the central thesis. This book is fare easier to understand than a straight chronological history like that of Norwich. It is a book which cannot be recommended highly enough.