« Roberts "Not An Ideological Person At All" | Main | The Media, Sabotage and Laughter »
Returning from Asia by way of Byzantium
Since the Byzantines were often keen to point out that it was at Byzantium that the Ten Thousand first found real refuge from the pursuit of the Persians and the hostility of locals, it seems fitting that my first post after my return from my so-called anabasis touch on something related to Byzantium.
Thomas Madden, a fine historian who works in Crusades history as well as on Byzantine-Venetian relations, has an excellent, professional review of three new Crusades books in the latest issue of First Things. As my main period of interest is a bit earlier, I have not had the opportunity to read Madden's works myself, but I am aware that he is very highly regarded and his recent work on Enrico Dandolo is, from all accounts, an accomplished piece of scholarship. I recommend the review to anyone interested in a learned opinion of the three books by Asbridge, Phillips and Tyerman, as well as a short but informative recapitulation of the Fourth Crusade.
It was unfortunate that Prof. Madden did not have the opportunity to include Prof. Angold's recent work on the Fourth Crusade (Longman, 2004), called simply The Fourth Crusade, especially since the book touches very directly on Madden's point about the historiographical pattern of depicting the Fourth Crusade in the most lurid colours. Since Prof. Angold takes a noticeably different view of the Fourth Crusade from essentially all previous scholars, who have tended in their pro-Byzantine or anti-Crusader sentiments to emphasise the violence of the sack of the City, this may explain Prof. Madden's lack of attention to it. It should be noted that his book does not minimise the political consequences of the Crusade, which were horrendous for the empire and ultimately ruinous for the Balkans in the long run, nor does he minimise the looting and desecration of Constantinople. Where Prof. Angold does depart from the standard story is in his account of the slaughter attending the sack of the City, which I believe he regards as essentially a popular and propagandistic myth. Whether or not Prof. Angold's arguments ultimately convince, his book probably deserved at least some attention in a review dedicated to the Crusades as a topic, even if the audience for the review is not one of professional medievalists and Byzantinists. In the coming months, if there is time in my reading schedule, I will look at the books under review here, as well as Angold's, and put up my thoughts on them.
Daniel Larison | July 30, 2005
Comments
Mr. Larison,
This may be the first time that I've stumbled upon your weblog... It reminds me of the excellent Polemics site - and I see that, philosophically-speaking, it seems to be similar. I noticed some thoughts posted here on the Roberts nomination; I am glad that some principled bloggers such as yourself and John Rabe have shared some clear-headed and insightful perspectives on this troubling situation. Thank you also for the excellent entry that I was just at, posted after Colonel Hackworth passed away. I was just thinking about him earlier this afternoon; he was such a great American.
Keep up the good work with your political commentary.
Aakash | 07/30/05 18:17
Aakash-ji,
Bahut bahut shukriya. Many thanks to you for your kind comments and your interest. I hope I will hear from you in the future. The Judge Roberts pick disturbs me more as time goes by, as I have discovered that initial media reports that he belonged to the Federalist Society are unfounded (some "conservative" radio hosts have actually seemed proud of this fact!). Col. Hackworth was an incomparable patriot, and it was an honour and a pleasure to pay tribute to such a man. I was sorry that I did not have an opportunity to write a similar tribute for Adm. Stockdale, who passed away earlier this month, but I can highly recommend Dr. Fleming's remarks about him over at the Hard Right/ Chronicles page.
I was a late addition at the old Polemics site, beginning my blogging 'career' some months before it closed down. Jon Luker was good enough to help set up this blog in the interests of continuing my commentary writing. He has also continued his blogging at Retrospect (see link on main page), as you may already know. I would like to think that the same spirit of serious criticism and committed conservative principles that motivated Jon and the others at Polemics have continued here.
Many thanks once again.
Daniel Larison | 07/31/05 15:20
You are signed in, . (sign out)