The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire c.500–1492 (vuoden 2009 painos)

This is another book I requested because my research takes me in unknowable directions and if I ever venture into this place and time, it would be delightful to have it on my shelve. Finding historical details about these distant times online tends to leave me with either unreliable brief summaries or with digressive theoretical essays that speculate rather than summarize historical facts.
“Byzantium lasted a thousand years, ruled to the end by self-styled ‘emperors of the Romans’. It underwent kaleidoscopic territorial and structural changes, yet recovered repeatedly from disaster: even after the near-impregnable Constantinople fell in 1204, variant forms of the empire reconstituted themselves.” It “tells the story, tracing political and military events, religious controversies and economic change. It offers clear, authoritative chapters on the main events and periods, with more detailed chapters on particular outlying regions, neighbouring powers or aspects of Byzantium.”
It is pretty unusual for histories to be written collaboratively, so when I requested it, I did not expect that this was another project written by a collective of writers. It is edited by a previous Cambridge lecturer, but the fact that he is now retired from teaching there does not really raise my confidence in his ability to rein in the contributors.
Because it includes contributions from dozens of writers, instead of a chronological history that moves over the decades in a logical manner, the chapters hop around in time haphazardly. The only chronological structure is in the distinction between parts into 500-700, 700-1204, and 1204-1492, however even these giant borders are not respected, as the first part includes chapters that covers 224-651: given that this timeframe is included, why didn’t the editor change the name of the part to be 224-700? The breakdown between chapters is partially geographic, with chapters on Persia and the Sasanian monarchy, on Armenia, on the “Arabs”, and “Byzantine Italy”. The Arabs chapter stands out as it stresses the ideologically biased perspective; another chapter is called “Religious missions”, and yet another, “Confronting Islam: emperors versus caliphs”. These titles suggest the authors are clearly on the side of the Christian missionaries and against the “Confronting” Islamists and Arabs. Inside the “Confronting” chapter, it begins by listing the various battles fought in the covered region and period over “Islam”. The narrative is indeed written from the perspective of defending a territory against a Muslim invasion: “Political, topographical and logistical impediments combined with Byzantine military resilience to halt major Arab advances into Anatolia…” (367). Then again, most of history is written from the perspective of its authors, who propagate for their own countries, regions or religions. Other parts of the book step away from religious aspects, and look at more entertaining topics such as, “Palace Intrigues and Coups”: “In 906-7 Patriarch Nicholas I Mystikos made an issue of the marriage of Leo to his mistress, who had recently borne him a longed-for male heir, Constantine. This, Leo’s fourth marriage, flagrantly violated canon law and a recent edict issued by Leo and his father Basil”, which caused an “involuntary abdication in 907” (503). While the organization is chaotic, the details of these chapters are precise and informative. If I was looking inside of this book for ideas on historical facts to incorporate into my fiction or scholarship, I would be able to find sufficient intrigues and curious facts to fill several studies.
Overall, this is an intricately researched and consistently focused historic recitation despite the fact that it was composed by dozens of distinct scholars. It does fit well enough together to craft a coherent history. It is not an easy read, but those who fight through it should emerge satisfied with having ventured inside.