Bandits in the Roman Empire: Myth and Reality

Bandits in the Roman Empire: Myth and Reality by Thomas Grűnewald is an English version of a book that was published in German in 1999. The English version was published by Routledge in 2004 (hardcover) and 2008 (paperback). The text is translated by John Drinkwater, a classical scholar from the University of Nottingham and author of Roman Gaul (1983, reprinted 2013).

Thomas Grűnewald - a classical scholar from Germany - is the author of a book about political propaganda in the age of Constantine (published 1990). His book about bandits in the Roman Empire began as a doctoral dissertation (Habilitation) for the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at the Gerhard-Mercator University in Duisburg. The text has been slightly revised for publication in order to accommodate comments made by examiners. According to the back cover of the paperback version he is an honorary lecturer in Ancient History at the University of Duisburg-Essen.

The Latin word for a bandit is latro, plural latrones. For obvious reasons this word is used a lot in this book. The Greek equivalent is laistes, plural laistai. Bandits on the sea (pirates) are known as praedones. While these words have several meanings, they always have a negative connotation.

The book begins with an introduction where ancient sources and modern scholarship about the topic are presented. It is no surprise that the primary material is quite limited. Most ancient authors felt that bandits do not deserve to be mentioned or discussed in serious literature. They are only mentioned in passing or if the author has a special agenda: it seems Tacitus mentions bandits during the reign of Tiberius in order to place this emperor in a bad light. The secondary material is also quite limited. An important source of inspiration is Bandits by E. J. Hobsbawm (1917-2012) (first published 1969, fourth edition 2001). Modern works are listed in a brief bibliography that appears on pp. ix-x.

The following text is divided into 8 chapters. Each chapter is divided into shorter sections by subheadings, which is very user-friendly. Here is the table of contents [with some additional information in square brackets]:

* Chapter 1 – Real bandits

* Chapter 2 – Guerrilla leaders as latrones

[Viriathus, Sertorius, Tacfarinas]

* Chapter 3 – Leaders of slave revolts as latrones

[Eunous and Cleon, Salvius and Athenion, Spartacus]

* Chapter 4 – Politicians and pretenders as latrones

[Catilina, Clodius, Julius Caesar, Marcus Antonius, Sextus Pompeius]
[Zeniketes, Lysias, Tarcondimotus, Antipater, Cleon]
[Lachares, Eurycles, Zamaris]
[Maxentius, Magnus Maximus, Maximinus Thrax]
[Proculus, Lydius, Palfuerius]

*Chapter 5 – Leistai in Judaea

[John of Gischala, Simon bar Giora]
[The mass suicide of the Sicarii at Masada]

* Chapter 6 – Imperial challengers

[Bulla Felix, Isodorus, Maternus]

* Chapter 7 – Avengers in dynastic conflicts

[Clemens, avenger of Agrippa Postumus]
[The avenger of Drusus, son of Germanicus]
[The avenger of Alexander, son of Herod]
[Aedemon, avenger of Ptolemy of Mauretania]
[Anicetus, avenger of Polemon II of Pontus]
[Three false Neros]
[Three troublemakers of the late Republic]

* Chapter 8 – Conclusion

At the end of the book there are notes with references and additional comments as well as an index. A note on page 222 explains: “This index combines Indices 3 and 4 of the German edition. Indices 1 and 2, listing citations of ancient and modern authors, have been omitted.”

While the text is relatively short (166 pages, including introduction and conclusion), the notes are quite extensive. They cover more than fifty pages (167-221). The top of the left-hand pages repeat the title of the book, while the top of the right-hand pages are marked with one word: “Notes.” This is unfortunate and not very user-friendly. The top of the left-hand pages should have been marked “Notes to chapter NN,” while the top of the right-hand pages should have been marked “Notes to pages XXX-YYY.”

There are no illustrations in this book. A photo on the front cover shows a relief of a mounted city policeman (paraphylax) and his armed subordinates. It is from Izmir (Smyrna), Turkey. Incidentally, this motive was also used on the front cover of Enemies of the Roman Order by Ramsey MacMullen (1966).

According to Grűnewald, the bandits of the Roman Empire can be divided into four types:

** Type-One: Robbers - chapter 1

** Type-Two: Rebels - chapters 2-3
** Type-Three: Rivals – chapters 4-6
** Type-Four: Avengers – chapter 7

The title of the German version contains four alliterations with the letter R: Räuber, Rebellen, Rivalen, Rächer. As you can see, these German words correspond to the four types of bandits identified by the author.

According to Grűnewald, each type can be divided into two sub-types, one negative and one positive. Among the rebels, Tacfarinas is considered a common criminal, who only wants to enrich himself, while Viriathus is considered a noble bandit, because he has a higher goal, such as justice. Among the rivals, Maternus is regarded as a common criminal, while Bulla Felix is regarded as a noble bandit.

As far as I can see, the sub-types (one negative and one positive) do not work well with type-one or type-four bandits.

While there are four types, the lines between them are not always clear: Viriathus, who is presented as a rebel, might also be described as an avenger. Even Octavian, the future Emperor Augustus, might be described as an avenger, who wanted to revenge the murder of his adoptive father, Julius Caesar.

Grűnewald is aware of this fact. On page 138 he says: “… to a certain extent the desire for vengeance characterises all types of latrones, in this respect making it difficult to distinguish between them.”

The German version (published 1999) was reviewed by Brent D. Shaw in the online magazine Bryn Mawr Classical Review (2000.02.12). Shaw knows the topic quite well: he is the author of three articles about Roman bandits (published 1984, 1991 and 1993). All three articles are listed in Grűnewald’s bibliography, and there are several references to them in the notes. Shaw is also the author of Sacred Violence: African Christians and Sectarian Hatred in the Age of Augustine (2011).

It is, in many ways, a positive review. Having presented a brief summary of the book, Shaw says:

 

“Grűnewald has worked carefully and assiduously to correct and update existing studies (…), and he is a fair and accurate reporter of views of other scholars on the subject. His analysis of the primary and secondary materials for the history of brigandage in the Roman empire is both diverse and comprehensive.”

At the end of his review, Shaw describes the book as “a diligent and incisive summa of research done to date, and a reasoned critique of some superficial interpretations that have worked their way into the scholarship on the subject. It will be the necessary point of departure for anyone who wishes to acquire an accurate assessment of the state of research, the condition and range of the primary sources and the specifics of the standard cases that have been involved in modern historical debates on the subject.”

However, Shaw also has some critical comments and some critical questions. Labels (definitions) can change over time, depending on the circumstances (i.e. who is in power):

 

“The novelists make the point that the bandits or pirates can be exterminated like beasts on one day, or rise to the position of respectable men and officials on another. Such was the work of fate.”

A modern example (not mentioned by Shaw) is Nelson Mandela: as a prisoner of the apartheid state, he was branded as a dangerous terrorist. When he was released and became the first black president of South Africa, he became the most respected politician in his own country and one of the most respected politicians in the entire world.

According to Shaw, the labels used by Grűnewald are not always convincing:

 

“Despite reading and rereading the section on the leaders of the slave wars as ‘type-two’ bandits, it remains unclear to me why Eunus [Eunous] and Athenaios [Athenion] count [as noble bandits] and Spartacus does not.”

Shaw has a question:

 

“Why precisely, for example, is Vespasian never a bandit to an observer like Josephus, who sees brigands everywhere else around him in his own society?”

I agree with Shaw. I like this book, but I have to mention a few things which bother me:

(1) On page 21 Grűnewald quotes an inscription from AD 151 or 152 about a person who was attacked by bandits as he travelled from Lambaesis to Saldae in North Africa. He says the author is Marcus Valerius Etruscus, but in fact it is Nonius Datus. Marcus Valerius Etruscus, commander of Legio III, did not travel to Saldae. He gave Nonius Datus, a Roman engineer, permission to make the journey.

The story of Nonius Datus and the aqueduct that transported water to Saldae is quite famous. It is mentioned in several books about Roman history. Apparently, Grűnewald does not know it. Apparently, the translator does not know it, either. He has faithfully translated Grűnewald’s mistake, without any correction.

For more information about this case, see Serafina Cuomo, “A Roman Engineer’s Tales,” Journal of Roman Studies, vol. 101 (2011) pp, 143-165.

(2) Sometimes Grűnewald is a bit careless when it comes to chronology. Here are some examples:

(A) In chapter 3 about the slave wars, he never provides the complete dates. On page 59, he should add: The First Slave War (Sicily, 135-132 BC).  On page 61, he should add: The Second Slave War (Sicily, 104-101 BC). On page 64, he should add: The Third Slave War (Italy, 73-71 BC).

(B) In the section about the Sertorian war in Spain (pp. 47-48), he never tells us when Sertorius was murdered. It happened in 72 BC. Incidentally, he never gives us the first name of this rebel. It is Quintus.

For more information about this conflict, see Sertorius and the Struggle for Spain by Philip Matyszak (2013).

(C) In the section about Tacfarinas (pp. 48-55), there is a problem with the chronology. We are told the conflict lasted from 17 to 24, which is true. On page 48 he says: “In AD 23 the proconsul Q. Junius Blaesus managed to run down and wipe out most of Tacfarinas’ followers.” In fact, this happened in AD 22. The text continues: “In the same year [i.e. AD 23] P. Cornelius Dolabella completed the work of his predecessor when he stormed the rebels’ camp and so precipitated Tacfarinas’ death.” In fact, this happened in AD 24.

When we get to page 53, we find the correct dates: Now Q. Junius Blaesus is connected with events in AD 22 and P. Cornelius Dolabella with events in AD 24. Apparently, the author did not notice his own inconsistency. Apparently, the translator did not notice it, either. He has faithfully translated Grűnewald’s mistake, without any correction.

(D) In the section about Masada, the desert fortress located south of Jerusalem and west of the Dead Sea (pp. 106-109), he says: “This last bulwark of the rebellion succumbed only in 73.” This is the traditional date. However, new evidence relevant for this case has been discovered, and therefore some scholars prefer the following year, AD 74. Grűnewald does not mention this issue. Perhaps he does not know about it. For references to the modern debate, see Maurice Sartre, The Middle East under Rome (2005) page 428 (note 204).

(3) Regarding Tacfarinas and his revolt, Grűnewald says: “Seen as a whole, it never amounted to very much, nor did it ever pose any serious threat to Roman rule in North Africa” (page 48).

Against this view I will offer the following facts, which are all mentioned by the author on page 53:

(a) The conflict lasted for almost ten years. (b) Three Roman commanders were granted a triumph after a victory over Tacfarinas. (c) The Ninth Legion was brought in from Pannonia to support the local legion in the war against Tacfarinas and his rebels.

On page 54 Grűnewald talks about “the very wide repercussions of Tacfarinas’ rebellion, its extraordinary ability to regenerate itself after defeat, the adaptability of its commander, his strategical [sic!] skills and his charismatic qualities as a leader.” Later, on the same page, he refers to “the undeniable truth that Tacfarinas’ uprising was perhaps the most important military event of the first ten years of Tiberius’ reign.”

As far as I can see, the first evaluation (on page 48) is refuted by the subsequent information (on pp. 53-54). The author seems to contradict himself, giving two opposing view of this rebellion.

(4) Sometimes Grunewald is so busy discussing terminology that he forgets to tell us the story of the bandits. This objection applies in particular to chapter 3 about the slave wars in the Republican era.

What about the translation? I think Drinkwater has done a good job. As noted above, it seems he overlooked a few problems. In addition, there are three misprints:

** Page 46 – “… the motions to refused Caepio his triumph.” It should be “refuse.”

** Page 79 – “Zenketes.” It should be “Zeniketes.”

** Page 100 – “Simon bar Gora.” It should be “Giora.”

In spite of these objections, I think he has done a good job. Because of his efforts this book is now available in English.

Incidentally, Drinkwater is mentioned in the text on pp. 129 and 164. There are references to his work in the notes on pp. 211-213 (notes 125, 149, 151).

Drinkwater was in contact with the author while he was working on the translation. In his foreword he explains: “I owe particular thanks to Thomas Grűnewald for his promptness and enthusiasm in reading and correcting my draft chapters as they were produced.”

In conclusion: Bandits in the Roman Empire is the first and so far the only full-scale study of this topic. I like this book, but as you can see from my review, there are some flaws, and therefore I think it deserves a rating of four stars.

PS # 1: The following recent articles are available online: Lincoln H. Blumell, “Beware of Bandits! Banditry and land travel in the Roman Empire,” Journeys, vol. 8, # 1-2, summer/winter 2007, pp. 1-20; Brady B. Lonergran, “Roman Banditry,” Penn Historical Review, vol. 18, # 1, fall 2010, pp. 1-25.

PS # 2: American author and illustrator Jasper Burns has written a modern screenplay about one of the famous bandits: Bulla Felix: The Roman Robin Hood (2011).

* * *

 

Thomas Grünewald,

Bandits in the Roman Empire: Myth and Reality,

Routledge, hardcover 2004, paperback 2008, 240 pages

 

* * *

 

 

 

 

 

Becoming Roman, Writing Latin?

Becoming Roman, Writing Latin? with the subtitle Literacy and Epigraphy in the Roman West was published by the Journal of Roman Archaeology in 2002 (special supplement # 48). The papers presented here are the product of a panel on this subject organized at the Fourth Roman Archaeology Conference held at Glasgow in 2001.

The JRA is edited by John Humphrey. The special supplement is edited by Alison E. Cooley - author of The Cambridge Manual of Latin Epigraphy (2012) – and it contains 11 contributions by 12 classical scholars (including two by the editor). Here is the table of contents [with information about illustrations in square brackets]:

** Chapter 1:

“Introduction”
By Alison E. Cooley
[No illustrations]

** Chapter 2:

“Epigraphy by numbers:
Latin and the epigraphic culture in Sicily”
By Jonathan R. W. Prag
[10 illustrations]

** Chapter 3:

“Latin on coins of the western empire”
By Andrew Burnett
[No illustrations]

** Chapter 4:

“Writing Latin in the Roman province of Lusitania”
By Jonathan Edmondson
[10 illustrations]

** Chapter 5:

“Writing Latin - from resistance to integration:
Language, culture, and society in N. Italy and S. Gaul”
By Ralph Häussler
[5 illustrations]

** Chapter 6:

“The survival of Oscan in Roman Pompeii”
By Alison E. Cooley
[1 illustration]

** Chapter 7:

“Seal-boxes and the spread of Latin literacy in the Rhine delta”
By Ton Derks and Nico Roymans
[13 illustrations plus 12 plates]

** Chapter 8:

“Pottery stamps, coin designs, and writing in late Iron Age Britain”
By Jonathan H. C. Williams
[4 illustrations]

** Chapter 9:

“Language and literacy in Roman Britain:
Some archaeological considerations”
By William S. Hanson and Richard Conolly
[No illustrations]

** Chapter 10:

“Writing to the gods in Britain”
By Roger S. O. Tomlin
[6 illustrations plus 4 plates]

** Chapter 11:

“Afterword: How the Latin West was won”
By Greg D. Woolf
[No illustrations]

Each chapter has its own bibliography. References are given in footnotes placed at the bottom of the page. At the end of the book we find a thematic index and an index locorum; both indexes are prepared by the editor.

The text is illustrated by numerous charts, maps and photos (in black-and-white). There are 49 figures and 16 plates, but some chapters have more illustrations than others, as you can see from the information listed above [in square brackets].

This special supplement is not a general history of the Roman Empire. The authors assume the reader has a basic knowledge of this subject. Therefore this volume is not recommended for the beginner.

If, on the other hand, you are already familiar with the history of the ancient world, and if you wish to learn more about the topics discussed here – literacy and epigraphy – then this collection may be just the right one for you.

When you read the papers presented here, you will get a chance to see how a classical scholar can work. You will get a chance to find out what we know and how we know it; or (in some cases) how little we know, because the evidence available is quite limited.

As you can see from the table of contents above, several geographical areas of the Roman Empire are covered here, e.g. Sicily, Spain, and Britain. The authors deploy an impressive range of materials, as Greg Woolf says on page 182 in his afterword: 

“Stone and bronze inscriptions, tablets of wood and lead, coins and seal-boxes, graffiti scratched on walls and pottery all feature.”

The authors are careful. They do not jump to conclusions. They present and discuss the ancient evidence as well as relevant modern scholarship. When they draw a conclusion, it is based on the evidence and not on speculation.

I like these papers. I like, in particular, chapter 4 about the Roman province of Lusitania by Jonathan Edmondson. On page 44 Edmondson mentions W. V. Harris and his famous study of literacy in the ancient world: Ancient Literacy (hardcover 1989, paperback 1991).

Edmondson shows that the figures used by Harris are too low and furthermore that the methods used by Harris are too mechanical and simplistic, perhaps so much that they may be misleading. On page 47 Edmondson says:

“As we have seen, W. V. Harris used the appearance of texts inscribed in Latin as a rough index to the spread of literacy in the western provinces. However, it is not necessarily the case that those who commissioned these texts could read, let alone write, Latin. A customer could easily have discussed the sort of text required with a stone mason, who would then suggest an appropriate written format for the epitaph – hence the overwhelming stereotypical nature of the texts that we find. Moreover, tracking the errors in the Latin inscribed does not necessarily prove anything about the quality of the Latin that was spoken by the inhabitants of a given region, although it might say something about that of the lapidarii.”

I also like chapter 10 about the curse tablets discovered Bath and Uley in the south of England by Roger S. O. Tomlin. On page 170 Tomlin says:

“Obviously we cannot quantify rural literacy, but its quality here is remarkable. If illiteracy were greater in the countryside than in the towns – and surely it was, for this is a truism confirmed by the distribution of stone inscriptions – then we would have expected to see the difference reflected in the Bath and Uley collections. It does not seem to be. Both use the same language, formulas and styles of handwriting.”

The use of formulas raises a central question: who wrote the tablets? Were they written by the victims themselves or by a professional scribe? W. V. Harris seems to favour the latter option, which is known as the minimalist position. To answer this question Tomlin makes several observations, including this:

“The formulas, which are widespread in southern Britain and find echoes elsewhere, indicate a broad consensus of how one should address a god, but they have many variations, and there is not a single duplicated text. Moreover, at Bath, where the hands have been drawn and tabulated …, it can be seen that no writer is responsible for more than one tablet.”

Having made a strong case against the minimalist position, Tomlin decides to leave the question open. The reader may judge for himself or herself.

I have two critical remarks about two minor flaws:

(1) On page 68 Ralph Häussler mentions Caecilius Statius and Marcus Tullius Cicero:

“In the early 2nd c. BC the Insubrian author Caecilius Statius was described by Cicero as malus auctor Latinitatis.”

Cicero did not do anything in the early second century BC. He was not even born then, and therefore Häussler’s statement is impossible. What the author wants to say is:

“The Insubrian author Caecilius Statius (ca. 220-ca. 166 BC) was described by Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) as malus auctor Latinitatis.”

(2) On page 185 Greg Woolf mentions the “highly incorrect texts from Bu Njem.” Having made this statement, he proceeds to write two sentences with highly incorrect English! 

Here is the first: “The connections that Williams make … is also suggestive.” The verb should be “are” (not: is). Here is the second: “The military connections … also suggests that …” The verb should be “suggest” (not: suggests).

Becoming Roman, Writing Latin? is an academic work, not suitable for the beginner, but highly recommended for the serious student. With this volume the Journal of Roman Archaeology has produced an excellent contribution to modern scholarship about the Roman Empire.

PS # 1. Special supplement # 48 was published in 2002. Eleven years earlier the JRA published another collection about this topic: Literacy in the Roman World (special supplement # 3, 1991).

PS # 2. For more information about this topic, see Literacy and Power in the Ancient World edited by A. K. Bowman and G. D. Woolf (hardcover 1994, paperback 1996, transferred to digital printing 2005).

PS # 3. Ralph Häussler developed his paper (chapter 5) into a book that was published in 2012: Becoming Roman? Diverging Identities and Experiences in Ancient Northwest Italy. On the cover, his last name is spelled Haeussler (in order to avoid the German letter ä).

* * * 

Alison E. Cooley, editor,

Becoming Roman, Writing Latin?

Literacy and Epigraphy in the Roman West,

The Journal of Roman Archaeology,

Special Supplement # 48, 2002, 192 pages

* * *

Constantinople: From Byzantium to Istanbul

Constantinople: Istanbul’s Historical Legacy by Stéphane Yerasimos is an English version of a book that was published in French in the year 2000. The English version was published by the German publisher Könemann in 2006 (hardcover) and 2007 (paperback). It was also published by the German publisher H. F. Ullmann (which took over Könemann when it went out of business) in 2008 (paperback) and 2012 (hardcover).

Oddly enough, the book provides no information about the author. Here is a brief biography:

Stéphane Yerasimos (1942-2005) was born into a Greek family that lived in Istanbul, Turkey. He grew up in Istanbul and studied architecture there. He grew up with two languages: Greek and Turkish. In the middle of the 1960s, he immigrated to France where he became a scholar who specialised in urbanisation, the history and the development of the city. He became a professor at the French Institute of Urbanisation at the University of Paris VIII. The language of his new country became his third language. Most of his books and articles were written in French. He lived and worked in France for the rest of his life, except for a five-year period (1994-1999) during which he was Director of the French Institute of Anatolian Studies, which is based in Istanbul. His life was cut short by cancer.

When we know his personal and professional history, we can understand why he wanted to write a book about the city where he was born; a city which is known by three names:

** The first name is Byzantium. This city was founded by Greek pioneers, perhaps with assistance from Thracian settlers, around 680 BC.

** The second name is Constantinople. This city was founded by the Roman emperor Constantine in AD 330 and named after him. At first it was the new capital of the whole Empire. From 395, when the Roman Empire was divided between East and West, it was the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, known today as the Byzantine Empire.

** The third name is Istanbul. When the Ottoman Turks conquered Constantinople in 1453, they changed the name of the city. Istanbul was the capital of the Ottoman Empire until it was dissolved shortly after World War One. Today Istanbul is no longer a capital, but it is the largest city in the Republic of Turkey which was established in 1923.

This book is huge and heavy. The format is large (27.5 x 32 cm) and there are 400 pages. When you browse through the pages, it seems impressive. The pictures are fabulous. Unfortunately, the text cannot measure up to the high standard of the illustrations. As a result, this volume is a bit of a disappointment.

Following a brief introduction – “Capital of Two Empires” - the main text is divided into three parts and nine chapters. Here is the table of contents:

PART ONE: CONSTANTINOPLE

* Chapter I – Nova Roma: The New Rome
* Chapter II – From the Iconoclast Controversy to the Latin Empire
* Chapter III – The End of the [Byzantine] Empire

PART TWO: THE EARLY OTTOMAN EMPIRE

* Chapter IV – Bursa: The Birthplace of Ottoman Art
* Chapter V – Edirne: On the Way to the Empire

PART THREE: ISTANBUL

* Chapter VI – The New Capital of the Ottoman Empire
* Chapter VII – The Golden Age
* Chapter VIII - The Decline of the [Ottoman] Empire
* Chapter IX – Reforms Before the Fall

At the end of the book we find the following items: a map of the Byzantine Empire at the death of Justinian; a map of the Ottoman Empire; a map of historical monuments in Istanbul; a chronology; a glossary; an index; a bibliography; and picture credits.

I have mixed feelings about this book. On the positive side I can say it is lavishly illustrated with pictures, drawings, and maps. All illustrations are in colour. Almost every monument mentioned in the text is shown in an illustration.

I like, in particular, the presentation of the Chora Church, known today as the Kariye Mosque, pp. 138-151.

On the negative side I have to mention three points:

(1) When you look at the table of contents, you can see there is a problem with the structure of the book. Part two (about the first two capitals of the Ottoman Empire) does not belong here, because this is a book about Constantinople and/or Istanbul. Since it is here, and since it is quite long, the title is somewhat misleading.

Consider the picture on the front and back covers of the book. You might think it shows a monument in Constantinople. But this is not the case! It shows the inside of a mosque in another place, the Selimiye Mosque in Edirne. In chapter VII “The Golden Age” the author uses ten pages to present this mosque, which is not located in Istanbul (pp. 270-279).

In part three about Istanbul the author covers one mosque after another. There are a few exceptions where other types of monuments are presented, but not many:

Topkapi Palace, pp. 210-242; Dolmabahçe Palace, pp. 360-366; the water supply, pp. 296-297; a sidebar about Sűleyman the Sultan, pp. 258-259; and a sidebar about Sinan the architect, pp. 274-275. At the end of chapter VII there are six sidebars about six different topics: calligraphy, illumination and miniatures, bookbinding, pottery from Iznik, textiles, and carpets.

If you ask me, too much space is devoted to Islamic mosques, while too little space is used on other monuments. The proportions are unfortunate.

[For more information about the water supply, a most interesting topic, see The Water Supply of Byzantine Constantinople by James Crow, Jonathan Bardill, and Richard Bayliss (2008).]

(2) There are serious problems with the text (and the chronology). The text is mostly descriptive; it gives the dimensions of each monument. The author almost never tries to analyse or interpret the monuments that he covers in the book. One example is the long section about Topkapi Palace which runs for more than 30 pages. On page 239 the text suddenly stops. There is no conclusion; no attempt to evaluate the whole complex.

In addition, there are many statements which are unfortunate or simply wrong. Here are some examples:

** The chronology at the end of the book is flawed: it says Constantine was emperor 324-337. It should be 306-337; it says Constantinople was founded in 324. In fact Constantine announced his plan to build a new capital in that year, but Constantinople (Nova Roma) was not dedicated until 330; it says Christianity was adopted as state religion in 392. It is more accurate to say 391-392; it says the Crimean war took place 1853-1855. It should be 1853-1856 (as stated in the text on page 361); it says Orham Gazi was sultan 1326-1359. It should be 1324-1362.

** The text claims “Constantine declared Christianity the state religion” (page 12). This is not true. This did not happen until the reign of Teodosius I (379-395). Nevertheless the message is repeated on page 79: “Christianity, declared a state religion by Constantine, became…” Both statements are refuted by the chronology. The author contradicts himself.

** The text claims Constantine was emperor 324-337 (page 25). The same mistake appears in the chronology. In fact Constantine was emperor from 306 to 337.

** “When Constantine the Great made the fateful decision in 323 AD to move the capital of the Roman Empire to Byzantium…” (page 79). The year 323 is wrong. The decision was announced in AD 324, and the author knows it. On page 27 he explains that Constantine’s victory over Licinius took place in September 324 and that his decision to build a new capital was announced a few weeks later, in November of the same year, which is true.

** On page 76, the author mentions a person called Narses, an army commander of Justinian. This name is correct. On page 41 the author mentions a person called Marses, also an army commander of Justinian. This name is false. If you turn to the index, you will see a reference to Narses on page 76. There is no reference to the false name (Marses) on page 41.

[For more information about this man and his career, see Narses: Hammer of the Goths by L. H. Fauber (1990).]

** On pp. 81 and 82 the author mentions an emperor called Maurikios. In the chronology at the end of the book this emperor is called Maurice. The author may use the Greek name Maurikios or the French name Maurice, but I think he should be consistent.

** Emperor Michael VIII Paleologos is mentioned several times. When did he rule?

--- 1258-1282 according to page 131
--- 1259-1282 according to page 85
--- 1261-1282 according to the chronology at the end of the book
The author is inconsistent. It seems the correct answer is that Michael was emperor of Nicaea 1259-1261 and emperor of Constantinople 1261-1282.

** The new church – Nea Ekklesia – built 876-880 is mentioned on pp. 83-84. The author tells us that it “is shown on a map of the city dating from the 1580s.” After this he adds that it was destroyed in 1490. This account raises a question: if it was destroyed in 1490, how can it appear on a map that was made in the 1580s? The map is from the 1480s. It is the so-called Vavassore woodcut of Istanbul made by the Italian Giovanni Andrea Vavassore, published in Venice in 1520.

** The Sűleymaniye Mosque complex is mentioned two times. When was it completed? On page 262 the author says: “The entire complex was completed in the year 1558.” But on page 275 he mentions “the Sűleymaniye Mosque complex in Istanbul, completed in 1557.” The author is inconsistent. As far as I know, the first date (1558) is correct.

** The famous mosaic, which shows Justinian and his court, appears on pp. 10-11. The caption (on page 12) reads: “Byzantine Emperor Justinian I (527-565). The emperor with his train: (from right to left) two deacons, Archbishop Maximian, the emperor, patricians, bodyguards. Mosaic [on the] north wall of the apse of the presbytery of San Vitale, Ravenna, before 547.”

The order of the figures given is unfortunate. Here is what it should be (again from right to left): two deacons; Archbishop Maximian; a high official (Narses?); Emperor Justinian; a high official (Belisarius?); a high official; six bodyguards.

What about the date? The mosaic on the opposite wall, which shows Empress Theodora and her court, appears on page 41. This time the caption says “ca. 547.” The mosaic in the dome of the apse appears on page 12. But this time the caption does not give a date. The church was dedicated in 547 or 548. Therefore it is unfortunate to say “before 547” and better to say “ca. 547.” Again we can see that the author is inconsistent.

** On page 30 the author says: “Next to the Column of Constantine, which commemorated the founding of the city, is the Hippodrome.” This is nonsense. These two monuments are not located next to each other. The Hippodrome is located southeast of the Column. They are about one km apart. If you look at the map of the city, pp. 382-383, where the Column is marked letter I and the Hippodrome is marked letter F, you can see that his statement is false. The author was born and raised in Istanbul. How can he make such a statement?

** On page 30 the author gives a long and detailed presentation of the Egyptian obelisk in the Hippodrome. Most of what he says is false. He thinks there are two Egyptian obelisks in the Hippodrome, which is false. The illustrations in the book show only one, because there is only one. Having presented the first obelisk and the second obelisk, he continues: “The third major monument in the Hippodrome…”

Here are the facts:

Obelisk # 1 was moved to Alexandria by Constantine ca. 330 and then moved to Rome by his son Constantius in 357 (in order to mark his visit to the city). In 1588 it was re-erected next to St. John Lateran where it still stands today.

Obelisk # 2 was moved to Alexandria by Constantius ca. 350 and then moved to Constantinople by Theodosius in 390. It was erected on the spina of the Hippodrome where it still stands today.

The author’s first words about the obelisk are also false. He talks about “the Egyptian obelisk originally erected by Thutmose III in front of the temple of Karnak in commemoration of his crossing of the Euphrates in 1471 BC.”

The obelisk was commissioned by Thutmose III, but he died before it was erected and inscribed. His grandson Thutmose IV had the monument erected and inscribed.

** The Egyptian obelisk in the Hippodrome is described as “Constantinople’s oldest surviving monument” (page 30). However, the author uses a similar expression to describe the Column of Constantine, also known as the Burnt Column or Cemberlitaş: “this pillar is today the oldest surviving monument in the city” (page 27).

Once again we can see that the author is inconsistent. Both monuments can hardly be the oldest. Which one has the honour? The obelisk is older than the column.

(3) While I like the illustrations in this book, I have to complain about one of them: the missorium of Theodosius, which appears on page 72. The original item has a diameter of 74 cm. But the picture in the book has been reduced to a diameter of only 9 cm. It is almost impossible to see the details.

Why is this picture so small? The plate, which shows a personified image of India, which appears on the very next page, has a diameter of 20 cm. This is a large book. Each page can accommodate an image with a diameter of 24 cm. There are 400 pages. Why is the picture of the missorium of Theodosius so small?

The author describes the ancient object in the following way: “In 388, Emperor Theodosius commissioned a considerably larger missorium (with a diameter of 74 cm/29 in) to be made in honor of the tenth anniversary of his accession to the throne…”

Theodosius was born in Spain in 347. He ruled 379-395, as the author says on page 26 (on page 30 he says 345-395, which is false). But the missorium dates from 388, and therefore it cannot mark the tenth anniversary of his accession to the throne, which was in 389. The missorium marks the beginning of his tenth year as emperor, which the Romans called decennalia. It seems the author is not aware of this Roman practice.

For more information about the missorium of Theodosius, see the first chapter of Silver and Society in Late Antiquity by Ruth E. Leader-Newby (published in 2004).

How many stars does this book about the historical monuments of Byzantium, Constantinople, and Istanbul deserve? When I look at the illustrations, I think it deserves four or five stars. When I look at the text, I think it deserves only two stars. When I look at the book as a whole, I think I have to settle for three stars.

* * * 

 Stéphane Yerasimos,

Constantinople: Istanbul's Historical Legacy,

H. F. Ullmann, paperback 2008, hardcover 2012, 400 pages
 

* * *