Scan barcode
A review by spacestationtrustfund
Ghost Empire by Richard Fidler
1.0
Why did Constantinople get the works, indeed.
The question of when the Roman Empire fell, if it fell at all, is insanely complicated. You have to bring the ship of Theseus into the mix, and no one wants that; arguably, few cultures have truly "fallen" unless they genuinely ceased to exist due to some catastrophe either natural or anthropogenic. If the Roman Empire "fell," it was less of an explosion and more of an implosion: a nation collapsing inwards on itself. And if you're dividing "the" Roman Empire into East and West, arguing that the collapse of the Western Roman Empire took place circa 476 CE but the Eastern Roman Empire continued to thrive for centuries afterwards, how are we defining the Roman Empire? If the Empire "split," are both pieces still one entity? At what point did the Roman transform into the Byzantine?
This book is half pop history and half travelogue memoir, but pretty entertaining either way. That said, there were a couple of issues I had with the book. First of all, the book spends quite a bit of time stressing how unfortunate it is that the Romans of Constantinople have been largely lost to history in the eyes of Westerners, how tragic it is that only the Western half of the Roman Empire is studied by Westerners, etc., but the entire book is told from the perspective of—well, Richard Fidler is Australian, so I don't know if he really counts as being a Westerner, even if he is part of the anglosphere, but I guess I also don't know why people in Australia would be spending more time than average on studying the history of a culture halfway around the world? Anyway, I just thought it was funny that Fidler talked a big game about how the Western world doesn't care about the history of Constantinople, but then he's just some white guy touring the city and telling its history for it. Very helpful of you, Mr. Fidler, a non-historian and non-specialist, to speak on this topic.
The other major issue I had with the book, and Fidler's approach in general, is that the focus was predominantly on the Roman influence on Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire in general, with little to no attention paid to the ancient Greek influence. (Don't only focus on the Western world, Fidler is arguing, also focus on places like Constantinople... 's importance to the West.) Fidler acts as though Byzantium is a little-known and less-studied city, which is far from accurate; even setting aside the fact that many, many scholars have written extensively about the Byzantine Empire on its own merit, the relationship between Byzantium and other cultures (including such notable figures as Alexander III of Macedon, for example) has been thoroughly studied. Focusing only on the Roman influence on Byzantium et. al. is ignorant at best and willfully dishonest at worst—and I'm hardly assuming the worst with no evidence here; Fidler says so himself. Quite early on in the book, he notes:
Don't worry; it gets worse: Fidler then continues by saying that he "[has] no Latin, Greek or Arabic, and so I have had to read the original narratives in translation." Ha, ha. Isn't it just so funny that this white guy who only speaks English can't tell the difference between names as different as "Monomachus" and "Porphyrogenitus"? Isn't it just hilarious? Why is Richard Fidler the one writing this book, again? I can't tell the difference between most of the guys in Hollywood, but I'm not writing a book about them.
Fidler does not spend much time or page length on the Greek half of the Byzantine Empire, which disappointed but did not surprise me, given that Fidler, an obvious non-specialist, also did not spend much time or page length on history beyond the very generic. Most of the information contained within this book could be found on a Wikipedia page or two. There are many far, far better books on the Byzantine Empire, some of them even written by actual experts, or even Byzantines themselves. I do not see why this book was necessary.
I did like this quote though:
The question of when the Roman Empire fell, if it fell at all, is insanely complicated. You have to bring the ship of Theseus into the mix, and no one wants that; arguably, few cultures have truly "fallen" unless they genuinely ceased to exist due to some catastrophe either natural or anthropogenic. If the Roman Empire "fell," it was less of an explosion and more of an implosion: a nation collapsing inwards on itself. And if you're dividing "the" Roman Empire into East and West, arguing that the collapse of the Western Roman Empire took place circa 476 CE but the Eastern Roman Empire continued to thrive for centuries afterwards, how are we defining the Roman Empire? If the Empire "split," are both pieces still one entity? At what point did the Roman transform into the Byzantine?
This book is half pop history and half travelogue memoir, but pretty entertaining either way. That said, there were a couple of issues I had with the book. First of all, the book spends quite a bit of time stressing how unfortunate it is that the Romans of Constantinople have been largely lost to history in the eyes of Westerners, how tragic it is that only the Western half of the Roman Empire is studied by Westerners, etc., but the entire book is told from the perspective of—well, Richard Fidler is Australian, so I don't know if he really counts as being a Westerner, even if he is part of the anglosphere, but I guess I also don't know why people in Australia would be spending more time than average on studying the history of a culture halfway around the world? Anyway, I just thought it was funny that Fidler talked a big game about how the Western world doesn't care about the history of Constantinople, but then he's just some white guy touring the city and telling its history for it. Very helpful of you, Mr. Fidler, a non-historian and non-specialist, to speak on this topic.
The other major issue I had with the book, and Fidler's approach in general, is that the focus was predominantly on the Roman influence on Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire in general, with little to no attention paid to the ancient Greek influence. (Don't only focus on the Western world, Fidler is arguing, also focus on places like Constantinople... 's importance to the West.) Fidler acts as though Byzantium is a little-known and less-studied city, which is far from accurate; even setting aside the fact that many, many scholars have written extensively about the Byzantine Empire on its own merit, the relationship between Byzantium and other cultures (including such notable figures as Alexander III of Macedon, for example) has been thoroughly studied. Focusing only on the Roman influence on Byzantium et. al. is ignorant at best and willfully dishonest at worst—and I'm hardly assuming the worst with no evidence here; Fidler says so himself. Quite early on in the book, he notes:
I wish Byzantine names were easier to follow, that it were easier to distinguish between Constantine Monomachus, Constantine Porphyrogenitus and Constantine Paleologus. I wish the emperors had snappier names like ‘Sven Forkbeard’ or ‘Ethelred the Unready,’ but they don’t. I have tried to simplify and contract them wherever I could.Cool. Love to see it.
Don't worry; it gets worse: Fidler then continues by saying that he "[has] no Latin, Greek or Arabic, and so I have had to read the original narratives in translation." Ha, ha. Isn't it just so funny that this white guy who only speaks English can't tell the difference between names as different as "Monomachus" and "Porphyrogenitus"? Isn't it just hilarious? Why is Richard Fidler the one writing this book, again? I can't tell the difference between most of the guys in Hollywood, but I'm not writing a book about them.
Fidler does not spend much time or page length on the Greek half of the Byzantine Empire, which disappointed but did not surprise me, given that Fidler, an obvious non-specialist, also did not spend much time or page length on history beyond the very generic. Most of the information contained within this book could be found on a Wikipedia page or two. There are many far, far better books on the Byzantine Empire, some of them even written by actual experts, or even Byzantines themselves. I do not see why this book was necessary.
I did like this quote though:
Professional historians approach such stories with great caution, knowing there will certainly be many fake baubles in the pile. Some accounts will be almost entirely untrue. All will be somewhat distorted according to the prejudices of the author and the political requirements of the moment. Different accounts must be weighed against each other, as well as the documentary evidence and the archaeological record. Sometimes the surviving records are scant and confusing.You don't fucking say.