Customer Reviews

Byzantium: An Illustrated History

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

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.

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

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.)

A good, quick overview of what is sometimes a grindingly confusing story ("byzantine"?). Lots ofpictures, however, which is very good because the Byzantines were such great artists.

I purchased this book under the assumption that it would contain at least a few color plates-after all, it is billed as "An Illustrated History." But I should have "looked inside the book" first. The illustrations are all b&w and don't come close to doing justice to the glory of Byzantine mosaic and painting.

The text is similarly lackluster. While I sympathize with the author's dilemma of having to squeeze 1,100 years of history into a 240 page book, there is no excuse for bad writing and shoddy research. The prose is dreadfully stilted, as if the author has never heard of dependent clauses or compound sentences. Truly, the text could have been lifted verbatim from the Weekly Reader or some other elementary school-level periodical.

The errors scattered throughout the text are similarly unacceptable. A few examples will suffice: The author claims that the general Belisarius "did not restrain himself and looted towns and villages" during his invasion of Italy. This statement is simply false. While Naples was sacked as punishment for a long and unwarranted siege, the strict policy of Belisarius was to respect the rights of the Italians-even to the point where he forced one of his own generals to return some ill-gotten booty to an Italian citizen. This error is perhaps explained by the fact that the author only used the "Secret History" of Procopius as a primary source for this period, totally ignoring the 6 other books of public history written by this same ancient author. This is the equivalent of using only the National Enquirer Magazine to write a history of 21st century America.

Another error is the statement that the Second Ecumenical Council in 381 AD "established the patriarch of Constantinople as the highest Church official." It did no such thing. The Council, in fact, made the patriarch of Constantinople the second bishop in the Church after only the Pope of Rome.

Perhaps worst of all is the slant the author gives to the text during the later Byzantine periods, creating an image of the Western Crusaders as vicious, bigoted, murdering barbarians while presenting the Muslims as tolerant intellectuals who were completely justified as they conquered their way across the then-Christian lands of Syria, Asia Minor, and the Balkans. While it is certainly true that the Crusaders were not without blame for some of their actions, a little balance would have been nice. The author is consistently unable to cover Islamic atrocities--even obliquely. Nowhere does he mention the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and the subsequent persecution of Christians by Hakem, Caliph of Egypt as a root cause of the Crusades. Furthermore, though he has several opportunities, the author does not bother to mention the destruction of the beautiful and ancient Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople after the conquest of that city by the Turks. He refers to it simply as "lost." The word "janissaries" appears a couple times, but the author merely explains that they were an "elite army of slaves raised from childhood in the Sultan's care." He does not bother to mention that they were the children of Christian families who were ripped from their homes, brainwashed into fanatical Islamists, and forced to serve as an army whose sole purpose was the conquest of more Christian lands. That the author chose to take the path of housebroken dhimmitude instead of scholarly objectivity when writing this book is irksome to say the least.

Upon finishing this book, it became clear to me that it may likely be used as a textbook in a mid-level university course in Byzantine or Medieval History. If you are a professor who is considering this book, I would recommend that you use Vasiliev's classic "History of the Byzantine Empire" instead which is still readily available. If you are a student and your professor has assigned this book, please be aware of its failings and know that what you are reading is not good or accurate history. Chances are, your library has a copy of Vasiliev's History--I recommend you read that if you want to get a better understanding of this fascinating subject.