Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #165039 in Books
• Published on: 2009-09-15
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Hardcover
• 352 pages

Customer Reviews

Caveat Lector!
The back cover of my review copy proclaims that "Lost to the West" is "no dry, scholarly work"; that the author "vividly evokes wars, bloody usurpations, and conspiricies"; that the book, which is intended to "popularze" history, is "entertaining." All these editorial assertions are true. With its dearth of citations, dates, indexes, and bibliography, "Lost to the West" has achieved, if not surpassed, its goal.

Although it begins slowly, the narrative becomes especially vivid and entertaining beginning with chapter seven, "The Rise of Peter Sabbatius," which focuses upon the rise of Justinian I, an era with which I have only a nodding acquaintance (other than Procopius' entertaining and tendentious "Secret History"--my interests being riveted on the late Republic and Empire through Septimius Severus--with occasional teaching forays into the 4th-5th centuries of our era).

As vivid and entertaining as I found the subsequent chapters--especially the adventures of Justinian's brilliant general Belisarius--doubts nevertheless lingered at the back of my mind, generated by some of the generalizations, simplifications, and, I fear, inaccuracies that caught my eye in chapters one to six, doubts that were exacerbated by the author's frequent forays into the thoughts of his historical protagonists.

To delve into the arguable over-simplifications here--e.g., "Crushed into hopelessness, more and more people took refuge in the different "mystery cults," the most popular of which was Christianity" [7]--would take up too much space for a short review; instead, I shall give only four examples. 1) On Diocletian's monetary reforms: "With budget and borders in hand. . ." glosses over the fact that Diocletian had no means to enforce his edict of maximum prices or coinage reforms [See A. Cameron, "The Later Roman Empire," Cambridge, MA (1993) 39]. 2) Rumor presented as fact: "Captured by the enemy, [the Roman Emperor Valerian] was forced to endure the indignity of being used as a footstool by the gleeful Persian king [2]" comes from the speculations of Lactantius, a Christian apologist who was not on hand to witness either Valerian's humiliation or Shapur's "glee". 3) The author's assessment of Constantine's reforms as resulting in the "feudal system, which would take deep root and not be overthrown for a thousand years" [17] fails to acknowledge the patron-client system in which, through a series of mutual obligations, the lower classes had been tied to the upper classes in the Roman world since before Romulus' adoptive mother was a pup. 4) Inaccuracies: "Without [a written constitution], every reign was reduced at its core to the principle of survival of the fittest--as Augustus, wrapped up in the cloak of the Republic had more eloquently put it, "carpe diem"--sieze the day" [9]. Although it is likely that Augustus quoted this memorable line of one of his pet poets, Horace, there is no written evidence that he ever actually uttered the words, which were written in the spirit of "Gather ye rosebuds while you may," and certainly not in context of hanging onto the imperial succession.

I realize that the goal of the publisher and Amazon is to sell books, which is why I debated so long on whether I should post this negative review. I think, however, that the entire concept of "popularizing" history in the form of straight narrative ought to be questioned. The ancient sources, which contain fascinating nuggets of information, are both sparse and full of holes--rather like a giant jigsaw puzzle. They have to be pieced together along with the evidence of inscriptions, archaeology, art, papyri, and other documents. They are therefore open to scholarly interpretation, which, admittedly, can be dreadfully dry, primarily because scholars are writing for other scholars (although the writings of many historians today are actually interesting--some even exciting). Arguably, a better way to "popularize" history (the actual events--or in the case of ancient history, the reports of events--are exciting in their own right) is through a good historical novel (examples: "Beacon at Alexandria," & "The Bearkeeper's Daughter," by Gillian Bradshaw, with degrees in Classics from U. of Michigan & U. of Cambridge; Mysteries about Rome by Steven Saylor, whose degree in Classics is from the University of Texas). My own fascination with history came via Alexandre Dumas; my journey back to ancient history is too tortuous to go into here. In a historical novel by an informed author, any reasonable scenario becomes plausible. In a straight narrative, however, unless the author has scrupulously checked all his facts, including those that are tangential to his narrative, he is left with a burden of proof, so that his reconstruction of events does not come tumbling down because of the missing pieces in his structural foundation.

This book is not recommended
Lars Brownworth knows Constantine was hailed as emperor in 306. He mentions this fact on page 12. He knows Constantine defeated one of his rivals (Maxentius) in 312. He mentions this fact on pages 13-14. He knows Constantine defeated his last rival (Licinius) in 324. He mentions this fact on page 16. He knows Constantine moved the capital of the empire from Rome to Byzantium in 330. He mentions this fact on page 22. He knows Constantine died in 337. He mentions this fact on page 25.

But the chronology of Byzantine emperors, which begins on page 309, does not agree. The first two entries read like this:

* Constantine the Great ... 324-353.

* Constantius (son of Constantine the Great) ... 353-361.

Both dates for Constantine are wrong. He was emperor from 306 (not 324) and died in 337 (not 353). He was the first Byzantine emperor from 330 (not 324).

His son, usually known as Constantius II, ruled from 337 (not from 353). He died in 361, so the last date is correct.

This is not good. In fact, it is rather bad. How can an author - how can a publisher - expect us to take them seriously, when they do something like this? I think it is very disturbing to see the chronology contradicting the main text.

Sometimes the text is not quite accurate:

(1) Chapter 8 is about the Nika revolt of 532 during the reign of Justinian the Great (527-565). Brownworth claims it was suppressed by a large number of soldiers, including a large group of "Scandinavian mercenaries" who had recently arrived (page 80). Vikings from Sweden travelled south and east along the rivers of Russia. Eventually they arrived in Constantinople, where some of them were hired as bodyguards for the Byzantine emperor. This happened in 988. In other words, Brownworth places the Scandinavian Vikings in Constantinople almost 500 years before they actually arrived there.

(2) On page 90 Brownworth mentions "the silver menorah that Titus had seized in Jerusalem in AD 71." Titus celebrated his triumph in Rome in 71. The conquest of Jerusalem took in the year before, 70. According to the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, the menorah was made of gold. [The Jewish War (Classics), book VII, chapter 148-149]

(3) Chapter 22 is about the Fourth Crusade and the sack of Constantinople in 1204. Brownworth explains that the Venetians not only destroyed but also collected some treasures. A footnote on page 258 gives this example: "One Venetian in particular climbed on the carceres - the monumental gate to the hippodrome - and removed four life-size bronze horses." The four horses were placed on top of the monumental arch (Porta Pompae) which was flanked by the starting boxes (Carceres), six on either side. Brownworth seems to confuse the arch with the boxes. To lower "four life-size bronze horses" from the arch must have been a difficult and delicate task demanding several persons and some technical equipment. To say that they were removed by "one Venetian" is totally unrealistic.

What about illustrations? There are not many in this book. There is a map of Constantinople (today Istanbul). This map is printed two times: inside the front cover and inside the back cover (endpapers). Why do they print it two times? Do they think we will accidentally lose one of them? In addition, there are six more maps in the book. This is fine. I do not want to complain about the maps. But there are no pictures. Not a single picture to illustrate the long and interesting history of the Byzantine Empire. Why not?

The only picture they give us is a picture of the author; it is on the jacket of the book. The brief biography tells us that Brownworth is a former teacher of history. As a former teacher of history he should know the value of illustrations in a book, but it seems he never learned this lesson

There could (and should) be many pictures in a book like this. Let me give you a few examples:

* On page 13 he mentions the basilica that was built by Maxentius in the Forum Romanum (306-312). A footnote gives us this information: "It is still there, although today it is known as Constantine's Basilica..." Some people call it Constantine's Basilica, but many people call it Maxentius' Basilica. It is still there, but there is no picture in the book.

* On pages 13-14 he mentions the Milvian Bridge across the river Tiber in the northern part of Rome where Maxentius was defeated in 312. The bridge is still there, but there is no picture in the book.

* On page 22-23 he mentions the hippodrome in Constantinople where the Nika revolt of 532 began. If you visit Istanbul, you can still see the remains of the hippodrome, but there is no picture in the book.

* On page 287 he mentions the Greek village of Mistra, not far from the famous town of Sparta. A footnote gives us this information: "Today a double eagle carved into the floor of the cathedral of Agios Dimitrios in Mistra marks the place where the last Byzantine emperor was officially confirmed." There is a modern carving with a double eagle in the floor of the church, but there is no picture in the book.

If you go to the index and look for some of these places, you will find that Mistra and Sparta are not listed here, although they both appear in the text. So, on top of everything else, the index is incomplete.

One final point: what about the title and subtitle of the book? The subtitle claims the Byzantine Empire is "forgotten." Is it true? If you search "Amazon Books" for books about this empire, you will get 2,434 results. The subtitle is misleading.

I feel sorry for Lars Brownworth. Clearly, he put a lot of effort into this book. Unfortunately, he did not succeed very well.

A subject worth a lot more attention
For those who followed Lars Brownworth's podcast, this book will not come as a total surprise as is builds upon that series with additional information. However, it is more than just a repeat performance with greater details, material, facts and a deeper sense of context, in particular concerning the Muslim invasions.

Things that happened less than 1,500 years ago are clearly still affecting us today in a most extreme fashion; Lars' new book will asisst anyone who values history in grasping a sense of the historical background that tragically propels certain cultures today. When you see all the mistakes present day decision makers who never opened a history book make by repeating the same mistakes as others did 1,500 years ago, this book becomes highly relevant in ways one might not at first imagine....

If you want to learn more about this period of history and get a compact overview of its most salient events, this book is the perfect starting point, and it is filled with suggestions for further research if you feel so inclined. Heartily recommended!