The Rise and Fall of the Great Empires (2)

One city, three names

The sidebar "Ancient Byzantium, modern Istanbul" on page 95 tries to to explain the three different names of one city. Here are the names and the relevant dates:

** From around 600 BC until AD 330, i.e. for more than 900 years, the city was known as Byzantium

** From 330 until 1453, i.e. for more than 1,100 years, it was known as Constantinople. It was the capital of the Roman Empire from 330 until 395, and the capital of the eastern or Byzantine Empire from 395 until 1453

** Since 1453, i.e. for more than 500 years, it has been known as Istanbul. It was the capital of the Ottoman Empire from 1453 until 1922, and it is the biggest town in the modern republic of Turkey that was founded in 1923.

As you can see, the basic facts are quite simple, but somehow Taylor manages to get nearly everything about this city wrong. Let us see how he does it:

First he mentions the first name - Byzantium - and continues: "In about 200 BC, the city was razed to the ground and then rebuilt by the Roman emperor Septimius Severus (r. AD 193-211)…" If we believe this, the city was left as a deserted area for some 400 years. But of course, it is not true. The first date is wrong, it is not 200 BC, but AD 200. Septimius Severus destroyed (parts of) the city as revenge, because it had supported one of his rivals in his struggle for the Roman throne.

Next he mentions the second name - Constantinopolis - and continues: "That remained its name for 1600 years, as capital first of the Byzantine and then the Ottoman empire." If we believe this, the city had the name Constantinople from 330 to 1922, which does indeed give a duration of almost 1600 years. But of course, it is not true. As stated above, Constantinople was the name of the Roman and later the Byzantine capital. It was never the name of the Ottoman capital. At one point, Taylor is aware of this fact: the timeline on page 148 (in the chapter on the Ottoman Empire) says "Mehmet II captures Constatinople; city renamed Istanbul as Ottoman capital" in 1453. When he knows this fact on page 148, why does he not know it on page 95?

Finally he mentions a third name - Istinpolin - and continues: "This name gradually changed into Istanbul and was the official name given to the city in 1930 when it became the capital of the Turkish Republic." If we believe this, Istanbul is the capital of the Turkish Republic. But of course, it is not true. As stated above, the city has been known as Istanbul since 1453. It was the capital of the Ottoman Empire from that year until the fall of this empire in 1922. The Republic of Turkey was declared on 29 October 1923. The Turkish politician Mustafa Kemal (later known as Atatürk) wanted to make a break with the past, so he chose Ankara, located in the middle of the new republic, as the capital. Istanbul was (and still is) the biggest town in modern Turkey, but it has never been the capital of this state.

Three different answers

The Holy Roman Empire is covered on pages 96-111. How long did it last?  The traditional answer is 962-1806, that is 845 years. Taylor gives three different answers to this question. Confusion seems to reign here. No. 1: his headline on page 97 (the beginning of this chapter) says 496-1805, that is more than 1,300 years. No. 2: on page 111 (the end of this chapter) he says: "Napoleon … decreed in 1805 that the 1000-year old empire was dissolved." All of a sudden we are down to 1,000 years. No. 3: on page 229 (in the chapter on the Third Reich) he says 911-1806, now it is less than 900 years.

By giving three different answers, Taylor shows he doesn't have a clue. Maybe you can make a case for answer no. 1, but it falls apart as soon as you mention answer no.2. Likewise, you may be able to make a case for answer no. 2, but it falls apart as soon as you mention answer no. 3.

On page 98 Taylor mentions the Frankish king Charles, who is known as the Great. He says Charles was 24 years old when his brother Carloman died in 771, which is true. He says further that Charles was called to Rome to assist Pope Leo III. While he was there, the pope crowned him emperor. The text (page 99) is not quite clear about the time of this event, but the timeline on page 98 says it happened in 800, which is true. On page 100, Taylor continues: "The newly crowned emperor was in his 60s." But this is not true. Since Charles was born in 747, he was in his 50s at the time of his coronation in 800, about 53 years old, and certainly not in his 60s.

Charles the Great ruled for many years. How many? Taylor gives us two different answers to this question. On page 98 he says 771-814. He gives the same answer on page 120 (in the chapter on the Umayyad Empire). But it is wrong. On page 126 (in the chapter on the Abbasid Empire) he says 768-814. This time he is right.

The Carolingian dynasty founded by Charles had many rulers who ruled for many years. When did it come to an end? The text on page 101 says "the weakened Carolingian dynasty was overthrown by Frankish aristocrats in 887." The timeline on page 98 gives the same answer.  But the list of emperors on page 110 has another four rulers after this date:

** Arnulf, 887-899

** Louis III, 899-911
** Conrad I, 911-918
** Henry I (the Fowler), 919-936

Taylor never explains the discrepancy between his text and his list of Carolingian emperors.

The emperor and the pope

After the Carolingian dynasty we hear about Otto and the battle of Lechfeld in which Otto defeated the Hungarians. When did this battle take place? The text on page 103 says 955, which is right, but the timeline on page 98 says 954, which is wrong.

In 962 Otto travelled to Rome where he was crowned Emperor Otto I by Pope John XII. According to historical tradition, this event marks the beginning of the Holy Roman Empire. Relations between the emperor and the pope seemed to be fine, but soon they had a falling out. On page 104 Taylor writes: "Only a few months later Otto summarily dismissed John, whom he believed to be plotting against him, and replaced him with a pope of his own choosing, Leo VIII."

This wording is unfortunate. Otto was crowned on 2 February 962. The phrase "a few months later" would mean April or May or maybe June. But the new pope, Leo VIII, was not elected until December 963, that is almost a year after the coronation. By using the phrase "a few months later," Taylor implies he has detailed knowledge of the chain of events. In fact the use of this phrase shows quite the opposite.

On page 105 Taylor mentions Henry II: "After Otto's death, Henry II (r. 973-1024) managed to secure the succession only through his military power, and when he died without children 22 years later, it was only after a long period of debate that Conrad II (r. 1024-39) was approved as emperor by the tribal leaders."

Something is wrong here. According to the list of emperors on page 110, Otto I died in 973, Otto II died in 983, and Otto III died in 1002. Henry II succeeded an Otto, not the first, not the second, but the third. Henry II did not rule from 973, as stated in the text, but from 1002, as stated in the list of emperors on page 110.

On the same page, there is conflicting information about the official name of the empire. First Taylor says: "A few years later, in 1024, the empire was formally declared to be the Roman empire." Next he says: "At the same time [= 1024], the empire began to be referred to in official documents as Regnum Teutonicum, or the German Kingdom." So which one is it? Roman or German? Taylor never explains the discrepancy between these two statements.

Henry, Frederick and Otto

On page 106, Taylor mentions Henry IV, who was excommunited by Pope Gregory VII in 1077: "Henry (r.1084-1105/06), who had been the German king since the age of six in 1054, travelled to the northern Italian town of Canossa." Henry had indeed been the German king since the age of six, but since he was born in 1050, he was only four years old in 1054. The correct year must be 1056. He was crowned in 1084, so this year is the beginning of his rule as emperor.

According to the text, Henry's rule ended in 1105/06. What does that mean? Is it 1105 or 1106? Taylor never explains. Here is the answer: Henry ruled until 1105 when he was forced to abdicate. He died the following year (1106). The list of emperors on page 110 says Henry IV ruled 1056-1106, which is wrong.

There is also some confusion about Frederick I, known as Barbarossa, the Red Beard. The list of emperors on page 110 says he ruled 1152-1190. But the text on page 106 says he ruled 1155-1190. And the timeline on page 101 says: "Frederick I Barbarossa claims power through conquest" in 1156.

Frederick was elected king by the tribal leaders in 1152. He was crowned emperor by Pope Adrian IV in 1155. The statement "Frederick claims power through conquest" implies he disregards formalities like a coronation. But since he had already been crowned emperor by the pope in 1155, there was no need for him to "claim power through conquest" in 1156.

Otto of Brunswick was elected king in 1208 and crowned Emperor Otto IV in 1209. How long did he rule? The text on page 109 says until 1215, which is right. The list of emperors on page 110 says until 1218, which is wrong. Otto was deposed in 1215 and murdered in 1218.

The main reason for the end of his rule was his defeat in the battle of Bouvines in Flanders. Taylor wants to give us the exact date of the battle, 22 July 1214, which implies he has detailed knowledge of the event. Unfortunately, his date is wrong: the battle of Bouvines took place on 27 July 1214.

Napoleon and Francis

As we have seen, it is difficult for Taylor to decide when the Holy Roman Empire begins. As we shall see right now, it is equally difficult for him to establish when and why it ends. On page 97 (the beginning of this chapter) he says: "By the time Napoleon oversaw its dissolution in 1805, the Holy Roman Empire had become an anachronism." This date is repeated on page 111 (the end of this chapter) where he says: "Napoleon … decreed in 1805 that the 1000-year-old empire was dissolved," and in the timeline on page 101. Three times he gives the year 1805, and three times he says the empire was dissolved by Napoleon. But on page 229 (in the chapter on the Third Reich) he seems to have changed his mind. Now he says it lasted 911-1806. I do not know the reason for the new start date. It is never explained. In fact, the year 911 is never mentioned in the text or the timeline. In addition, he moves the end date from 1805 to 1806, with no explanation.

Once again we can see that Taylor's statement, in his introduction, that "the rationale for their placements is consistently explained," is simply not true. Some dates are never explained, and some of the explanations given are not very convincing.

Napoleon did not dissolve the Holy Roman Empire, but he did, of course, play an important part in the history of Europe around the year 1800. The last emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, Francis II, was defeated by Napoleon's forces in the battle of Austerlitz in 1805. On 26 December 1805 France and Austria signed the Treaty of Pressburg (modern Bratislava in Slovakia). On 6 August 1806 Francis abdicated the throne, and this date marks the official end of the Holy Roman Empire. After his abdication, however, he was not without a job: since 1804 he had been Emperor Francis I of Austria, a position he retained until his death in 1835.

The timeline on page 101 says: "Abdication of Emperor Francis II; dissolution of empire by Napoleon" in 1805. As we can see, Taylor knows about the last emperor, but the year is wrong, and Napoleon did not dissolve the empire.

The Treaty of Pressburg is mentioned on page 218 (in the chapter on Napoleon) where Taylor says: "The treaty effectively destroyed the moribund Holy Roman Empire." This wording is actually very precise. Napoleon played a role, but technically or formally he did not dissolve the empire. I wish Taylor had used this phrase earlier, instead of claiming that Napoleon "oversaw its dissolution."

This chapter has 16 pages. Taylor uses six of them to describe the Carolingian dynasty, even though it ruled long before the Holy Roman Empire was established, and therefore is not so relevant to his case. On the other hand, he never mentions the Thirty Year War (1618-1648), even though this conflict plays an important part in the history of the Holy Roman Empire. On page 186 (in the chapter on Spain and Portugal) he mentions two battles of the Thirty Year War:

1643 - the battle of Rocroi

1648 - the battle of Lens

But once again, he never mentions the name of the war. The failure to mention the Thirty Year War constitutes an omission of an important fact.

Constantinople and Córdoba

The Umayyad Empire is covered on pages 112-121. On two occasions rulers of this empire, known as caliphs, organised a siege of Constantinople, in an attempt to crush the Byzantine Empire, but they never succeeded. When did these events take place? The timeline on page 114 places the first siege in 674-678 and the second in 717-718, which is correct. The caption to the picture on page 115 reads in part: "Umayyad attempts to take Constantinople in 674-78 and 716-17 failed." Here the dates for the first siege are correct, but the dates for the second siege are wrong.

The second siege of Constantinople is also mentioned in the text on page 119: "In his brief term as caliph, Al-Walid's son Sulayman (r. 715-17) made a determined effort to crush the Byzantine empire, with 80,000 men besieging Constinople for a year. The failure of this campaign not only damaged Umayyad prestige but also left the dynasty fatally weakened." As you can see, Taylor does not give a clear date for the beginning and the end of the siege, only for the rule of the caliph. In this way, he avoids giving a wrong date for the siege.

The Umayyad Empire was destroyed and replaced by the Abbasid Empire in 750. But one important member of the Umayyad dynasty - Abd-ar Rahman - survived and escaped to Spain (al-Andalus) where he defeated the pro-Abbasid governor and established a new Umayyad dynasty, known as the Emirate of Córdoba, that lasted for almost 300 years: 756-1039. In what year did Abd-ar Rahman defeat the pro-Abbasid governor of Arab Spain? The timeline on page 114 says it was in 755. The sidebar "The Umayyad in Spain" on page 120 gives the same answer. But it is wrong. The right answer is 756.

In the sidebar, Taylor mentions two famous buildings of Arab Spain: "The Great Mosque of Córdoba and the Alhambra of Granada are only two out of scores of magnificent Umayyad buildings that remain a testament to the glories of Arab Spain." The Great Mosque of Córdoba was built by the Emirate of Córdoba, but the Alhambra of Granada was built during the 14th century by the Emirate of Granada, which ruled 1238-1492. Both buildings are a testament to the magnificent architecture of Arab Spain, but the Alhambra of Granada is not an Umayyad building.

A new capital

The Chola Empire is covered on pages 130-133. In this chapter Taylor mentions Rajendra Chola I, who ruled 1012-1044, and the new capital which he founded on the east coast of India around 1025. What is the name of this city? According to the text and the small map on page 132, it is Gangaikonda Cholapuram. But according to the timeline on page 132 and the index (page 251), it is Gangaikonder Cholapuram. The first version is right, the last one is wrong.

If you try to google the word Gangaikonder Cholapuram, you will discover there is no such word. The system will ask: "Did you mean Gangaikonda Cholapuram?" If you have to write a word that is very long and sounds somewhat strange to Western ears, you would think that the author and the publisher would take great care to get the spelling right. It seems they have not done so. The name of the new Chola capital appears four times in the book, two are right and two are wrong.

The Turks and the Greeks

The Ottoman Empire is covered on pages 146-157. The rulers of this empire are known as sultans, and the name of the first sultan is Osman, but Taylor insists on calling him Uthman:

** In the text on page 147

** In the timeline on page 148
** In the list of sultans on page 155

If you look at the list of sultans, you will find Osman II (1618-1622) and Osman III (1754-1757), so why not be consistent and call the first one Osman I? The empire begins with this sultan, but when did his rule begin? Tradition says 1299. True to his fashion, Taylor gives three different answers to this question. The headline on page 147 says 1300. The timeline on page 148 says 1293, thus adding seven years to his rule and to the empire. The list of sultans on page 155 says 1281, thus adding another 12 years to his rule and to the empire.

On page 155, Taylor mentions Greece and its struggle for national independence: "In Greece, intervention by the European powers helped nationalists throw off Turkish domination in 1829." The timeline on page 151 repeates this view when it says "Greeks achieve independence" in 1829. But the year is wrong, and the impression given in these brief statements is quite misleading.

The establishment of modern Greece was not an event which took place in a single moment, it was a long and difficult process. Greek nationalists started an uprising in 1821, but the Turks did not give up without a struggle. The existence of Greece was recognised in the treaty of London in 1830. The first king - Otto of Bavaria - was appointed in 1832, but his kingdom was not very big. Modern Greece was a small country which increased its size very slowly, step by step. To give one example, the island of Crete did not become a part of Greece until 1913. And the country did not get its present size until shortly after the end of World War II when the Dodekanese Islands, including Rhodes, were annexed.

The map on page 154 is supposed to show "The extent of the Ottoman empire in the late 17th century." But the caption is wrong and so is the map. At the end of the 17th century, all Greek territory was still a part of the empire, but the map shows the mainland of Greece as an area outside the empire. Only the island of Crete is shown as a part of the empire. As explained above, a part of Greece was allowed to leave the empire, but this did not happen until around 1830.

The Balfour Declaration

In the sidebar "Lawrence of Arabia" on page 157, Taylor mentions a very famous document known as the Balfour Declaration:

"In 1917 the British foreign secretary Sir Arthur Balfour (1848-1930) guaranteed British support for 'the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people'."

The quote is accurate, but the context is not. By giving the quote, Taylor implies he has consulted the original document. I am sure he has not. If he had, he would know that the British government did not give any guarantee at all in this document. Let me quote the whole passage to show the context:

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object."

The Balfour Declaration was carefully and cleverly worded. A casual look may give the impression that the British Government gives a guarantee, but a closer inspection of the text reveals that it promises absolutely nothing. If you say you view something "with favour," you do not give a promise. If you say you will use your "best endeavours" to facilitate the achievement of some object, you do not give any specific guarantee. Whatever happens, you can always claim you did your best.

I know that many people say - and maybe even believe - that the Balfour Declaration was a promise to give the Jewish people a national home in Palestine. But it is not true. It may be a widespread interpretation, but it is still a misunderstanding.

On page 151 Taylor mentions the old palace - Topkapi - which was built just after the conquest of 1453. But he never mentions the new palace - Dolmabahce - which was built in the middle of the 19th century. Both palaces are major examples of Ottoman or Turkish architecture. And while there are many illustrations in this chapter there is not a single picture of either palace. Why not?

At the end of this chapter, Taylor describes the decline and fall of the Ottoman empire, but he never mentions the Crimean War (1853-1856) in which Great Britian and France joined the Ottoman Empire in order to prevent Russia from taking over (certain parts of) the Ottoman Empire. The failure to mention the Crimean War constitutes an omission of an important fact.

* * *

Go to the next installment:

 

The Rise and Fall of the Great Empires (3)

 

* * *