12 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Schiavo's Review Misleading, Inaccurate, November 8, 2005
This review is from: Byzantium: An Illustrated History (Paperback)
As the author of this book, I find Mr. Schiavo's review curious to say the least. Disregard the rating I give. Authors should not rate their own work but the form required I give one and I could not let this misleading review stand unchallenged.
His comment that I do not use compound sentences and dependent clauses is simply false. Even the sentence he quotes (out of context) about the Second Ecumenical Council contains a dependent clause.
The mercy of Belisarius towards the Italians depended on the time and situation. Sometimes he was merciful, but many times he was not. The sentence he quotes reads in full, "THIS TIME Belisarius did not restrain himself and looted the towns and villages along the way." (emphasis added) Schiavo's comparison of the "Secret History" of Procopius to the National Enquirer is a gross exaggeration. Yes, Procopius wrote other books, but they were written as official histories (propaganda, in other words) and therefore must be seen as suspect. The "Secret History" was just that, a history not to be seen by the public in which the author could vent his grievances over the misrule of Justinian. Of course it must be taken with a grain of salt, as all primary sources should. I even warn the reader of this on page 53 when I say the passage on Theodora "reads like the angry diatribe of an alienated employee." That does not mean it can be dismissed out of hand.
The quote on the Second Ecumenical Council is taken out of context. The passage makes clear that the Patriarch was not put above the Pope, but was made to be exactly what I said, the highest church official, not the head of the church. The next paragraph talks about how the penitence of the emperor Theodosius at Milan led later emperors to draw away from the Pope. The long passages about later struggles with the Pope make it clear that the Second Ecumenical Council did not free the Eastern Church from Papal influence, despite what medieval Greeks would have liked to believe.
As to my "housebroken dhimmitude," Schiavo ignores the passages where I talk about Muslim massacres of Christians, Muslims destroying Christian towns, and Christians being led away into slavery. Apparently there weren't enough of them to make an anti-Islamic screed, which would have proven to Mr. Schiavo that I wasn't "housebroken."
In sum, his review is as one-sided and poorly researched as he claims my book to be. I suggest readers decide for themselves.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Byzantium: An Illustrated History, March 6, 2005
This review is from: Byzantium: An Illustrated History (Paperback)
I found this book to be compelling as well as interesting, especially since the author spends enough time to highlight the more personal sides of the major characters of the Byzantine Empire. Knowing the dates and places may be important but understanding "why" the events took place is even more important in the continuing study of mankind. The author does a wonderful job of explaining the nuances of the men and women who have made the Byzantium Empire such a compelling study still today.
The only thing that could make this a better book is if there were more of it.
Jim Purdy - Tucson, Arizona, USA
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
3 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Some good, some not so good, February 23, 2006
This review is from: Byzantium: An Illustrated History (Paperback)
I am an avid follower of Byzantine history, and have just begun reading the book (hence my rating is tentative). I appreciate the level of language--it is not overly technical. Mr. McLachlan does a nice job at the outset of his description of the Arian problem, but here's where the problem comes in. On p. 18 he claims that "Constantine convinced the clergy to compromise. Christ and the Father, it was decreed, were 'of like substance,' a statement vague enough to be acceptable to both sides." This is factually wrong. The Council of Nicaea decreed that the Father and the Son were of the same substance (homoousios in Greek), not of like substance. This issue is important to me, because I'm looking for an introductory-level history of Byzantium that gets the theological aspects straight, so I can share it with others. I am hoping that this error proves to be the exception.
(And just a suggestion. I note that Mr. McLachlan's degree is in archaeology, and specializes in history and travel. It might be worth considering having someone theologically trained to review those portions of the book which deal with theological topics such as this, before it is printed or before it is re-issued.)
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
