What are you currently reading?

[Todd]

For the Byzantines, Gibbon is still the best read. Norwich's three decker about the Byzantine Empire is possibly the best modern one, but not quite as good as his history of Venice. (He did a one volume history of Byzantium, but I haven't read that: I assumed it was an abridgement of the three volume work.). His one flaw is that he loves his subjects too much.

I remember reading Lord Kinross's history of the Ottomans and thinking it good, but there are alternatives there I don't remember reading.

Thanks of the tips.  The Kinross looks like my speed for the Ottomans.  As a point on clarity, I meant more the Persian and Chaldean empires, but more info on the eastern remnants of Rome is always welcome.  (I'm just not sure I want a three volume history, at least for now.)

[kishnevi]

Thanks of the tips.  The Kinross looks like my speed for the Ottomans.  As a point on clarity, I meant more the Persian and Chaldean empires, but more info on the eastern remnants of Rome is always welcome.  (I'm just not sure I want a three volume history, at least for now.)

Can't help you there. Gore Vidal's Creation is a great historical novel, but it is 1)a novel and 2)used a view of the Persian Empire's chronology that was outdated even when he wrote it. But that's the only pertinent book I've read on Persia and Mesopotamia that was not narrowly focused on the Jews of those areas.
People like Tom Holland's books, but in what I have read of him, I have found errors in tangential matters that suggested in some things his research was confined to skimming for fun looking factoids.

[SimonNZ]

finished:

Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson

This much praised bestseller I found merely serviceable in laying out the chronology, letting a number of key players speak in their own words, debunking a few myths and giving equal weight to all the parts of his career. Where it lets itself down is in the constant repetition of already made conclusions and in the four or five same amateur-psychology "insights" that the author too easily falls back on and beats like a drum all the way through the book.

[Ken B]

This fantastic column https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/opinion/how-we-are-ruining-america.html?_r=0

I will read the Small Differences book I think.

[Florestan]

"Vasiliev's survey of Byzantine history is unique in the field.  It is complete, including a sketch of literature and art for each period, while all other works of the kind, even the most recent, either are restricted to a shorter time, or neglect some side of eastern civilization. . . . This widely known and highly prized History of the Byzantine Empire needs not the commendation of any reviewer.  Written originally in Russian, it has been turned into English, French, Spanish, and Turkish.  It has always been a favorite with students."—The Catholic Historical Review

I have it in the two-volume-in-one Romanian edition and can attest to its enormous scope and erudition.

And a small correction: The "Byzantine" Empire (originally an ideologically-motivated misnomer) was not some "eastern remnant of Rome" --- it was THE Roman Empire, continuing its existence, albeit in mostly diminished territorial extension, until 1453. The 476 Fall of the Roman Empire is a legend; nothing of the sort happened, and if somebody would have told the then-Emperor Zeno in Constaninople that the Empire felt, that person would have been (rightly) laughed off the court.

[Christo]

And a small correction: The "Byzantine" Empire (originally an ideologically-motivated misnomer) was not some "eastern remnant of Rome" --- it was THE Roman Empire, continuing its existence, albeit in mostly diminished territorial extension, until 1453. The 476 Fall of the Roman Empire is a legend; nothing of the sort happened, and if somebody would have told the then-Emperor Zeno in Constaninople that the Empire felt, that person would have been (rightly) laughed off the court.

Correct, I never taught otherwise and will normally refer to the Roman Empire only. And of course to the so-called Holy Roman Empire, which lasted til 1809 in some enclaves of the German Order, and might be said to survive in the tiny form of Liechtenstein. :-)

[Jo498]

Of course the Eastern part of the Roman Empire was still going strong for several centuries. But it is also misleading to claim that nothing happened in 476 when the western branch "fell"/was taken over by Germanic tribes. Or especially after the 7th century when the East lost quite a bit of its territory to Arab expansion. Or in 800 when Charlemagne claimed the title of Holy Roman Emperor (which pissed off the real (Eastern) Roman Emperor considerably). All these are important landmarks in European/Mediterranean history.

[Christo]

Or especially after the 7th century when the East lost quite a bit of its territory to Arab expansion.

The most important game changer, and if one feels inclined to discern a 'Byzantine' period in Roman history, this is the only meaningful starting point.

[Florestan]

Of course the Eastern part of the Roman Empire was still going strong for several centuries. But it is also misleading to claim that nothing happened in 476 when the western branch "fell"/was taken over by Germanic tribes.

In any case, nothing akin to "the Fall of the Roman Empire". It is quite significant that after deposing the child emperor Romulus Augustulus*, Odoacer sent the imperial inisgnia to Constantinople**.

*A move which was actually of less practical importance for Odoacer than deposing the Magister Militum, Orestes, who happened to be Romulus Augustulus's father.

More importantly, perhaps, Orestes in his turn had deposed the previous emperor Julius Nepos in 475 and forced him to fled Italy, but the latter was still acknowledged as the only legitimate emperor by his colleague in Constantinople, so actually Odoacer deposed an usurper. Shall we then substitute 475 for 476 as "the year the Roman Empire" fell?

** "the Fall of Rome" would be even farther from being true: all throughout 476 AD life in Rome was business as usual in a rather unimportant city. Odoacer's coup took place in Ravenna, which had taken Rome's place as the capital of the Western Empire in 402.

Or especially after the 7th century when the East lost quite a bit of its territory to Arab expansion. Or in 800 when Charlemagne claimed the title of Holy Roman Emperor (which pissed off the real (Eastern) Roman Emperor considerably). All these are important landmarks in European/Mediterranean history.

True, but despite all these momentous events, all the "Byzantine" emperors, from Charlemagne's time up to the very last one in 1453, called themselves βασιλεύς Ῥωμαίων, "emperor of the Romans" and their state Βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων, "Empire of the Romans", while the inhabitants called themselves Ῥωμαίωί, "Romans". Inventing a "Byzantine" Empire ruled by "Byzantine" Emperors and inhabited by "Byzantines" has nothing to do with the historical reality and everything to do with ideology and prejudice. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then call it a rabbit.

For an in-depth discussion of what really happened in 476 and why "Byzantine" is a gross misnomer, prejudice-ladden and concocted for ideological reasons, see this excellent online article:

Decadence, Rome and Romania, the Emperors Who Weren't, and Other Reflections on Roman History

[aligreto]

Francoise Sagan: Bonjour Tristesse....





This one was recommended to me by my daughter and it it did not disappoint. I found the outlook to be incisive and mature for one so young.

[kishnevi]

The Byzantines called themselves Romans, their empire the Roman Empire, and their emperor Emperor of the Romans until the bitter end.  But perhaps the best marker is linguistic:  Justinian was the last Emperor who spoke Latin as his mother tongue.  He was the one who reconquered Italy and North Africa, but even in his day laws and decrees were promulgated in vernacular Greek to ensure the populace understood them (even though the Institutes and related publications were written in Latin).  It seems people used to say Heraclius made Greek the official language, but that was mostly legend.  Still, it would seem that by the early 7th century, just before the advent of the Islamic Conquest, one could reasonably think of an Eastern Empire that was significantly different in organization and culture from its predecessor.

[Florestan]

The Byzantines called themselves Romans, their empire the Roman Empire, and their emperor Emperor of the Romans until the bitter end.  But perhaps the best marker is linguistic:

I beg to differ. Especially in the case of an Empire, the linguistic mark is more often than not misleading.

  Justinian was the last Emperor who spoke Latin as his mother tongue.

This is a fact, but its relevance is somehow offset by a number of other facts

1. Greek had been the second language of the educated Romans, and Greek preceptors were the most sought-after, long before the Empire was established. With the possible exception of some soldier-emperors who lacked a thorough education, in all probability all other Roman emperors, starting with Octavian Augustus and including Justinian himself, spoke and wrote Greek fluently, and some of them even used Greek for writing their works, the most famous example being Marcus Aurelius.

2. Justinian was preceded by several emperors whose mother tongue was not Latin and who weren't even ethnically Latin (he had himself Illyrian / Thracian blood in his veins and was born in present-day Macedonia), the most famous being Diocletian (born Diokles --- a Greek name --- in Dalmatia, present-day Croatia, probably of Illyrian descent), Galerius (of certain Thracian / Dacian origin, born in present-day Sofia) and Constantine the Great (born in present-day Serbia of Illyrian / Dacian - Greek descent).

3. Latin proper had been the language of only a fraction of the entire population of the Roman Empire, and even of the city of Rome proper, long before the administrative split of Diocletian.

There was hardly any town of importance in the West in which the Greek tongue was not in everyday use. In Rome, North Africa, and Gaul, the use of Greek was prevalent up to the third century.

Ironically, it is arguably only after Constantinople was founded and the Eastern Empire established and the Germanic tribes began to settle on Roman soil that Rome became a purely Latin-speaking city due to the Greek-speaking population massively going eastward and the Germanic peoples being gradualy "Romanized".

With the progressive "Romanization" and conversion of the races of the West, the influence of the Greek culture is gradually dethroned. According to H. Lietzmann, J. Jungmann, T. Klauser, "Greek lasted up until the middle of the third century, when the Roman Christians had made Latin their popular language and readily adopted it into the Roman culture."23 During the ensuing years, the gulf between the language of the Liturgy and the language of the people widened. Nevertheless in due consideration of the many problems involved, Greek in the Liturgy ceded definitely to Latin in the fourth century because Latin was then the common language of the people. (This evolution was accomplished in the course of two centuries—from the beginning of the third to the end of the fourth century.) The transition of the liturgical language took place in Rome, and the initiative for the change is attributed to Pope Damasus.

He was the one who reconquered Italy and North Africa, but even in his day laws and decrees were promulgated in vernacular Greek to ensure the populace understood them (even though the Institutes and related publications were written in Latin).

One more proof for #3 above.

it would seem that by the early 7th century, just before the advent of the Islamic Conquest, one could reasonably think of an Eastern Empire that was significantly different in organization and culture from its predecessor.

But that is the whole point of contention: the Eastern Roman Empire was not the successor of a preceding Roman Empire, nor was a preceding Roman Empire succeeded by the Eastern Roman Empire. The Eastern Roman / "Byzantine" Empire had always been simply the Roman Empire, period. And after the Western Empire disintegrated, it became THE Roman Empire.

As for "significantly different in organization and culture", the formula applies to the Roman Empire during Nero and during Diocletian before his move to administratively split it. Should we therefore say that they were two different empires?

[Ken B]

The Western Empire, which includes the little known town called Rome, indubitably did fall. It became fashionable in recent decades to (nonsensically) deny this. The Eastern Empire was whittled away over time, but I think Andrei has a point. It was the same empire in the same sense that modern England is still Plantagenet England, despite the different language.

[Ken B]

I beg to differ. Especially in the case of an Empire, the linguistic mark is more often than not misleading.
 

This is a fact, but its relevance is somehow offset by a number of other facts

1. Greek had been the second language of the educated Romans, and Greek preceptors were the most sought-after, long before the Empire was established. With the possible exception of some soldier-emperors who lacked a thorough education, in all probability all other Roman emperors, starting with Octavian Augustus and including Justinian himself, spoke and wrote Greek fluently, and some of them even used Greek for writing their works, the most famous example being Marcus Aurelius.

2. Justinian was preceded by several emperors whose mother tongue was not Latin and who weren't even ethnically Latin (he had himself Illyrian / Thracian blood in his veins and was born in present-day Macedonia), the most famous being Diocletian (born Diokles --- a Greek name --- in Dalmatia, present-day Croatia, probably of Illyrian descent), Galerius (of certain Thracian / Dacian origin, born in present-day Sofia) and Constantine the Great (born in present-day Serbia of Illyrian / Dacian - Greek descent).

3. Latin proper had been the language of only a fraction of the entire population of the Roman Empire, and even of the city of Rome proper, long before the administrative split of Diocletian.

There was hardly any town of importance in the West in which the Greek tongue was not in everyday use. In Rome, North Africa, and Gaul, the use of Greek was prevalent up to the third century.

Ironically, it is arguably only after Constantinople was founded and the Eastern Empire established and the Germanic tribes began to settle on Roman soil that Rome became a purely Latin-speaking city due to the Greek-speaking population massively going eastward and the Germanic peoples being gradualy "Romanized".

With the progressive "Romanization" and conversion of the races of the West, the influence of the Greek culture is gradually dethroned. According to H. Lietzmann, J. Jungmann, T. Klauser, "Greek lasted up until the middle of the third century, when the Roman Christians had made Latin their popular language and readily adopted it into the Roman culture."23 During the ensuing years, the gulf between the language of the Liturgy and the language of the people widened. Nevertheless in due consideration of the many problems involved, Greek in the Liturgy ceded definitely to Latin in the fourth century because Latin was then the common language of the people. (This evolution was accomplished in the course of two centuries—from the beginning of the third to the end of the fourth century.) The transition of the liturgical language took place in Rome, and the initiative for the change is attributed to Pope Damasus.


One more proof for #3 above.

But that is the whole point of contention: the Eastern Roman Empire was not the successor of a preceding Roman Empire, nor was a preceding Roman Empire succeeded by the Eastern Roman Empire. The Eastern Roman / "Byzantine" Empire had always been simply the Roman Empire, period. And after the Western Empire disintegrated, it became THE Roman Empire.

As for "significantly different in organization and culture", the formula applies to the Roman Empire during Nero and during Diocletian before his move to administratively split it. Should we therefore say that they were two different empires?

As to the last (good) question: AD 381. The Empire really did begin to change its culture and raison d'être after it became officially Christian. That was a process not an event but 381 is a good marker.

[Florestan]

The Western Empire, which includes the little known town called Rome, indubitably did fall.

I don't deny that, but as you correctly point out, it was a process, not an event. What I do deny is that the Roman Empire as an official, continuous entity fell at any other date than May 29, 1453.

[Crudblud]

Don DeLillo - Libra

DeLillo's psychological and blackly satirical take on the events leading up to the assassination of JFK. Split between an almost comical look at a group of CIA agents who are trying to plot a failed attempt on the President's life as a pretext for full blown war with Cuba, and the meticulously researched and convincingly dramatised biography of Lee Harvey Oswald, the plot alternates as the two stories converge, in a similar but not quite the same structure as DeLillo contemporary Thomas Pynchon's V.. Jack Ruby, who is the main character of a few sections, is also richly fleshed out. There is also a third story, arguably a frame narrative of sorts, though it first appears a good way into the novel rather than at the beginning, in which a CIA archivist is piecing together the events surrounding the assassination.

DeLillo's writing style, as usual, jumps deftly between poignant psychological insights, colloquial banter, and deadpan absurdism that can be both hilarious and depressing at the same time. His "biography" of Oswald shows off his rich characterisation abilities, and delivers a very complex character, neither a monster or a hero, a weird and insecure guy who doesn't really know what he's doing, but finds himself at odds with American society because of his communist political leanings. As he is drawn into an unfolding plot, the designers of which find him to be a near perfect match for their projected shooter/patsy, his ability to balance family and politics, which are ever in conflict, is steadily demolished. I won't go into detail about the book's depiction of the Oswald family, but the way DeLillo eschews sensationalist conspiracy theory fiction in favour of keenly observed domestic scenes to build the foundations of Oswald's character, his tether to the real world, is well worth mentioning as one of the book's strongest elements.

The book weaves its themes together convincingly. These are dense and multi-layered, but the idea of Libra, scales, balance between opposing forces, a mediating influence between them, is applied to almost everything. The book makes a great deal of coincidence, personal agency, and the ineluctable modality* of history. Oswald himself is presented as someone who is trying to escape history but is at the same time drawn to the romanticism of fate. He is taken in by the manic David Ferrie, who is obsessed with fate and astrology, and claims to find Oswald intriguing because of his star sign, Libra. It is never clear how much of Ferrie's interest in Oswald is guided by the personal vs. his involvement with the Kennedy plot, but this sort of ambiguity of motive is the book's bread and butter. It is a highly engaging and thoughtful book that is beautifully constructed, and I recommend it muchly.

*just started my second attempt at James Joyce's Ulysses

[Christo]

The Empire really did begin to change its culture and raison d'être after it became officially Christian. That was a process not an event but 381 is a good marker.

Which simply means that 'Roman' became the equivalent of 'Christian' for over a thousand years; and that's the meaning that stuck, in many languages, even til the present day.

[Jo498]

Because this fits:
I am roughly in the middle of Vidal's novel "Julian" about Julianus Apostata. I did not check with independent sources but at that time (350s) there was already a marked linguistic gap. Julian speaks "soldier's Latin" so he might have been technically bilingual but he does not really feel at home in the language and reads older Roman authors (like Cicero) in Greek translation. And it is frequently mentioned that the (partly pagan, partly christian) Greek rhetoric professors and philosophers in the Eastern part despise Latin as "barbaric language". On the other hand "Asian" and "Greekling" are derogative names Julian is called in the West.

About a generation later, St. Augustine knew some Greek but apparently not very well. And later in the "Latin" middle ages there was the phrase "Graeca non leguntur" because Greek quotations were basically skipped in the lectures and only some specialists read and translated Greek authors, despite the high status of Plato and especially Aristotle; cf. The name of the Rose where as far as I recall only about two of the learned monks read Greek (that's why the mysterious book is both hard/easy to identify).

I really find it interesting that whereas the later Western middle ages were basically bilingual (Latin + local vernacular) and from the 16th century humanism on, "educated" persons were usually supposed to read Greek as well, the actual antiquity that caused the cultural importance of these languages was in practice mostly monolingual, Greek dominated until the first century AD (the classical Greeks basically ignored "barbaric tongues"), then somewhat bilingual for two or three centuries (with Greek being still more common as lingua franca, probably also because most of the commercial an intellectual centers were in the East: Athens, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria etc.) and divided into a Western Latin and an Eastern Greek half afterwards.

[Florestan]

Peter Charanis (1908 - 1985), former Voorhees Professor of History at Rutgers University, born on the island of Lemnos under Ottoman rule, recalled this extremely telling anecdote from his childhood.

When the island was occupied by the Greek navy [during the First Balkan War in 1912], Greek soldiers were sent to the villages and stationed themselves in the public squares. Some of the children ran to see what these Greek soldiers, these Hellenes, looked like. "What are you looking at?" one of them asked. "At Hellenes," we replied. "Are you not Hellenes yourselves," he retorted. "No, we are Romans".

(as quoted in Anthony Kaldellis: Hellenism in Byzantium, The Transformations of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition)

This is absolutely amazing: 459 years after the Fall of Constantinople, Roman identity still persisted in the minds of Greek speaking children.

[Christo]

This is absolutely amazing: 459 years after the Fall of Constantinople, Roman identity still persisted in the minds of Greek speaking children.

Even today, Greek minorities in the Middle East are locally known as Romans, in Arabic, Turkish, and no doubt in Georgian and other languages as well. "Hellenes" is the nomer nationalists opted for, but it always had a strong connotation of "pagans". Even in the TV news I occasionally hear and see "Romans" being translated as Greeks, and correctly so.