The author tells us right away that he wasn't always familiar with what he innocently called the "later Roman Empire," expecting a story of civilization's decline into the Dark Ages. But instead, he discovered a "rich tapestry" of lively emperors, "seething barbarian hordes," and people who identified as Roman long after the Western Roman Empire was traditionally considered gone. This Eastern continuation of the Roman Empire is what we now call the Byzantine Empire, and the author's goal with this book is to help us understand this vibrant society that often gets overlooked in Western historical narratives. He feels these people have remained "voiceless far too long" and hopes to whet the reader's appetite for the "vast sweep of Byzantine history". One of the first things the book touches upon is the very name "Byzantine" itself. It turns out that "Byzantine" is actually a modern term. The people who lived in this empire, from the founding of Constantinople in 323 to its fall eleven centuries later, always called themselves Roman. Even their neighbors, allies, and enemies saw them this way for most of their history. For example, when Mehmed II conquered Constantinople, he claimed the title "Caesar of Rome," seeing himself as a successor to a lineage stretching back to Augustus. It was really the scholars of the Enlightenment, who preferred to focus on ancient Greece and classical Rome, who denied the Eastern Empire the name "Roman" and instead labeled it after the ancient name of Constantinople, Byzantium. They saw the "real" Roman Empire as ending in 476 with the last Western emperor and dismissed the history of Constantinople as a thousand-year slide into "barbarism, corruption, and decay". But the author argues that this view misses a crucial point: Western civilization owes an "incalculable debt" to this city on the Bosporus. For over a thousand years, Constantinople stood as a great "bastion of the East," protecting a young and chaotic Europe. Without Byzantium, the surging armies of Islam might have swept into Europe in the seventh century, and, as historian Gibbon suggested, the call to prayer could have been heard over Oxford. So, while some historians dismissed Byzantium, the author emphasizes that it played a vital role in defending Europe. Beyond just military defense, Byzantium kept the "light of the classical world alive". While civilization flickered dimly in remote monasteries in the West, it blazed in Constantinople. Byzantium gave us Roman law through Emperor Justinian, which is still the basis of most European legal systems today. Their artisans created beautiful mosaics and architectural wonders like the Hagia Sophia. And perhaps most importantly for the preservation of knowledge, their scholars preserved and cultivated the "dazzling Greek and Latin classics" that were nearly extinguished in the West during the Dark Ages. Byzantine universities and even the Patriarchal Academy in Constantinople taught a curriculum that included the literature, philosophy, and scientific texts of antiquity. This was quite a contrast to the West, where barbarian invasions shattered civilization and broke ties with the classical past. This makes you wonder, how much of our understanding of the ancient world would be lost without the preservation efforts in the East? The book covers a vast period, over a thousand years of history. To make this history engaging and accessible, the author uses a "personality-driven approach," focusing on the emperors. This makes sense because the emperor was incredibly central to Byzantine life; few societies were as autocratic. The person on the imperial throne was seen as divinely appointed, standing "halfway to heaven," and their decisions profoundly affected everyone. The author also uses Latinized names for familiarity, like Constantine instead of Konstandinos. He hopes this approach will make the subject more accessible and awaken interest in a topic long absent from the Western canon. He firmly believes that we share a "common cultural history" with the Byzantine Empire and can find important lessons from its story. Plus, he adds, the story itself is "captivating". The narrative begins with the pivotal moment when history seemed to hinge on the actions of a single man: Constantine. After a period of civil wars, Constantine, guided by a divine voice, chose the ancient city of Byzantium as the site for his new capital, a city that would refresh the old, decrepit Rome. This choice was made after he reportedly saw a cross of light over the sun with the inscription "IN HOC SIGNO VINCES" ("conquer by this sign") and received further instructions in a dream. Following this vision, he adopted Christian symbols for his banners and achieved a decisive victory at the Milvian Bridge, becoming the sole ruler of the Roman Empire. Constantine's reign ushered in "sweeping changes," including Christianity striking its first blow against paganism. However, this was a war for the soul of the empire that was far from over. We see this struggle continue with figures like Julian the Apostate, Constantine's cousin. Julian, initially a quiet scholar, secretly rejected Christianity and converted to Neoplatonism after studying abroad. Despite being sent to Gaul by Emperor Constantius II (who had outlasted his brothers and united the empire) with minimal resources to face barbarian invasions, Julian surprisingly proved to be a brilliant general and administrator. His military success and popularity worried Constantius II, who saw him as an "emerging threat". Julian later tried to revive paganism as emperor. However, his efforts ultimately failed, symbolized by the Delphic oracle's last recorded prophecy lamenting the decline of the ancient gods. Although Julian's attempt to repaganize the empire failed, the vast pagan literature of the classical world wasn't lost. Unlike their Western counterparts, early Byzantine church fathers saw value in pagan philosophy, believing careful reading could extract moral lessons. This preservation of classical writing by Byzantine universities contrasted sharply with the West, where barbarian invasions often disrupted learning. The sources then touch upon the challenging period leading to the fall of the Western Roman Empire. After Julian's death, there was a "depressing decrease in quality" among rulers. Emperors like Valens made "shortsighted policies" that contributed to disasters like the Battle of Adrianople in 378, where the Goths decisively defeated the Roman army, leading to the death of Valens himself and shattering the "myth of Roman invincibility". The West faced immense pressure from Germanic barbarians crossing frozen rivers like the Rhine in 406, overrunning Gaul and Spain. Despite efforts by skilled generals like Stilicho, who fought desperately to maintain the West's integrity, internal political intrigue and resentment led to his execution. The Western emperors, like the weak Honorius who moved his capital to Ravenna for better defense, watched as provinces like Gaul, Spain, and Britain fell away. By 423, when Honorius died, much of North Africa, a vital source of wealth, was lost to the Vandals. Ultimately, in 476, a barbarian general named Odoacer decided to rule Italy directly, ending the line of puppet emperors by exiling the teenage Romulus Augustulus. This marked the formal end of the Western Roman Empire, though Byzantium (the East) prudently navigated the situation by not legitimizing Odoacer's rule outright while focusing on its own stability. After this tumultuous period, we encounter Justinian, adopted nephew of Emperor Justin, who rose from humble peasant origins to become commander of the palace guard. Justinian was brilliant and well-educated in classical texts. One of his most significant contributions was bringing order to Roman law, which was a confusing mess of centuries of contradictory precedents. Working with the extraordinary lawyer Tribonian, Justinian oversaw the creation of the first comprehensive legal code, the Codex, which became the "supreme authority" and remains the basis of most European legal systems today. This enormous task was completed in a mere fourteen months, showcasing the incredible ability of those involved. Justinian also harbored "cherished dreams of reuniting the empire". He launched ambitious campaigns, notably against the Vandal kingdom in North Africa. A previous attempt under Emperor Leo, led by the incompetent Basiliscus, had ended in spectacular failure, nearly bankrupting the East and extinguishing the West's last hope. However, Justinian had Belisarius, described as the "greatest general in Byzantine history". Belisarius, often with outnumbered forces, achieved stunning victories. He reconquered North Africa, restoring immense prestige to the empire and emperor. His triumphs included recovering the looted riches of Rome and celebrating a triumph in Constantinople, an honor not given outside the imperial family for centuries. The spoils included treasures like the silver menorah seized from Jerusalem by Titus in 71 AD. The defeated Vandal king, Gelimer, was paraded and forced to kneel before Justinian, reportedly quoting Ecclesiastes: "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity". Belisarius then turned his attention to Italy, which was ruled by the Ostrogoths. Despite challenges like mutiny in Africa and inadequate resources due to the emperor's caution and interfering officials like Narses, Belisarius continued to win victories, even escaping near-disaster when surveying Gothic positions outside Rome. He demonstrated incredible courage and leadership, rallying his troops. His strategic brilliance forced the Gothic king Vitiges to retreat from Rome. The author notes that Italy hadn't seen a commander of Belisarius's character since Hannibal. With proper support, the conquests of Spain and Gaul seemed within reach, potentially reviving the Western Empire and sparing Europe some of the destruction of the Dark Ages. However, the Italian campaign was plagued by political interference and divided command, notably involving Narses. The tragic fate of Milan, which was brutally sacked by the Goths after generals refused to relieve it without Narses' countersignature, highlighted the folly of undermining Belisarius. This event did convince Justinian to recall Narses and give Belisarius undisputed command. But just as Belisarius was poised to end the war by taking Ravenna, the Gothic king Vitiges sought aid from the Persian king Chosroes, prompting Justinian to prematurely offer terms to the Goths, much to Belisarius's dismay. Belisarius, while loyal, refused to sign this "shameful thing". The Goths, fearing a trick, offered Belisarius the crown of a revived Western Roman Empire. Despite the tempting opportunity, Belisarius's loyalty never wavered. He feigned acceptance, entered Ravenna in 540, and accepted the Gothic surrender, restoring Italy to the Roman Empire in a "remarkably bloodless victory". Yet, accepting the Gothic crown, even as a ruse, was seen as an "unpardonable crime" by some, awakening smoldering suspicions. Belisarius was recalled to the East to face the Persian threat led by Chosroes, who had taken advantage of the empire's focus on the West to invade Syria and sack Antioch. Meanwhile, in Italy, the Goths found a brilliant new king, Totila, who challenged the Byzantine hold by promising deliverance from heavy taxes and unceasing war. Belisarius struggled to hold central Italy with discontented troops who hadn't been paid and seemed more likely to defect to Totila. Eventually, Narses was sent back to Italy, this time equipped with ample supplies and men, succeeding where Belisarius, hampered by lack of resources, had struggled. Narses defeated and killed Totila at the Battle of Busta Gallorum, bringing Italy back under imperial control. While the Eastern Empire under figures like Justinian experienced periods of resurgence, the old Western provinces under barbarian rule were sinking into the "brutish chaos of the Dark Ages". Urban life declined, literacy plummeted outside the Church, trade slowed, and grand public buildings fell into disrepair. Monasteries in the West played a crucial role in keeping learning alive, albeit dimly. This contrast highlights how different the trajectory of civilization was in the two halves of the former Roman world. It makes you ponder the different factors that led to such divergent outcomes in the East and West. Despite its moments of glory, the Byzantine Empire also faced internal challenges and periods of decline. The late sixth century saw a diminishing middle class, farmers struggling with debt, and the rise of powerful aristocratic landowners. The government, short of funds, resorted to harsh tactics with diminishing returns. The emperors who followed Justinian often turned a deaf ear to citizens' complaints due to chronic financial issues. A major turning point came with the rise of Islam. From seemingly unthreatening desert tribes, Muhammad unified followers with "burning zeal," leading to a "holy jihad" to expand the "House of Islam" at the point of a sword. Muslim armies exploded out of the desert with "frightening speed" in the seventh century, precisely when the Byzantine Empire was distracted and weakened. This "bewildering enemy" carried all before them, leading to the loss of two-thirds of the empire's territories and half its population. Cities became shells of their former selves, and Arab raiders plundered the countryside. This period, marked by devastating losses and psychological scarring, profoundly impacted the empire. However, the empire also produced resilient leaders during these dark times, like Heraclius, who appeared like a "new Achilles". Facing the existential threat of the Persian invasion under Chosroes II, which saw the loss of vital provinces like Egypt (cutting off the main grain supply) and even Persian watch fires visible from Constantinople's walls, Heraclius considered moving the capital. When his horrified people begged him to stay, he agreed, demanding they accept whatever sacrifice he required. Heraclius eventually turned the tide, breaking Persian strength and recovering all that had been lost, including the True Cross. His triumphant return to Constantinople was celebrated with immense joy, symbolizing the empire's salvation. Around this time, the empire also underwent a significant cultural shift: Greek became the official language. Latin, which had been the language of the laws and imperial titles, had slowly died out in the East, considered less suitable for sophisticated discussions. By Heraclius's time, few understood the archaic Latin of the laws. Prioritizing military efficiency, Heraclius made Greek the official language, and imperial titles changed; emperors were known as _Basileus_ ("king") instead of _Imperator Caesar Augustus_. This marked a "startling but long overdue" break with the Latin past, confirming the empire was now "thoroughly Greek". The relationship with the West became increasingly strained over the centuries. The West saw Byzantium as having "disgraced herself" (referring to Empress Irene blinding her son) and, in their eyes, was ruled by a woman, disqualifying her from ruling. This led Pope Leo to turn to the Franks, culminating in the crowning of Charlemagne as emperor in 800. The Pope used a known forgery, the "Donation of Constantine," to bolster his claim to have the authority to bestow the crown. This act, creating a rival emperor in the West, significantly damaged relations. Despite the political difficulties, the Byzantine Empire experienced periods of cultural and intellectual renaissance. The brilliant Patriarch Photius single-handedly reawakened a love of classical literature. This led to a "flurry of intellectual activity". Emperor Leo VI (Leo the Wise), three and a half centuries after Justinian, undertook the monumental task of translating and updating the Roman law code into Greek, earning him renown as the greatest lawgiver since Justinian. This period showed that even as political fortunes fluctuated, the intellectual and cultural life of Byzantium could still flourish. The book also highlights internal power struggles and the rise of significant military figures and dynasties, like the Macedonian dynasty. Interestingly, some of the most successful emperors of this dynasty, like Romanus I Lecapenus, Nicephorus II Phocas, and John I Tzimisces, were actually "pretenders," men without direct blood ties who rose to power by claiming to protect the legitimate heirs. Romanus I, for instance, gained popularity and power, eventually making the legitimate emperor, Constantine VII (Leo the Wise's son), a background figure. Despite the humiliations he endured, Constantine VII quietly survived and eventually became widely popular, seen as the rightful heir born in the purple. Military men often rose to prominence. Nicephorus Phocas, a general with unparalleled military reputation, was eventually proclaimed emperor by his soldiers. His book on tactics and strategy became a classic. However, his abrasive personality strained relations with Western powers. After Nicephorus was assassinated, John I Tzimisces, his nephew and a capable general, took the throne. Both Nicephorus and John achieved significant military successes, particularly against the Arabs. John's death by poison, allegedly orchestrated by the powerful head chamberlain Basil Lecapenus (an illegitimate son of Romanus I), cut short a promising reign. Then came Basil II, the legitimate heir, who, despite a rocky start and facing challenges from powerful rebels like Bardas Sclerus and Bardas Phocas, asserted his authority. Basil II is remembered for his relentless campaigns against the Bulgarians, earning him the terrifying nickname _Boulgaroktonos_, the "Bulgar Slayer," after he blinded fifteen hundred prisoners. This brutal victory, and Samuel's subsequent death from shock, ultimately led to the complete surrender of the Bulgarian empire in 1018. Basil II left behind a glorious empire stretching from the Danube to the Euphrates, economically powerful with its gold coin serving as the standard currency. However, challenges persisted. The Great Schism in 1054 formally split Christendom. A papal legate, Cardinal Humbert, placed a note of excommunication on the altar of the Hagia Sophia, and the Patriarch Cerularius returned the favor by excommunicating the West. This meant Byzantium was "dangerously and terrifyingly alone," facing enemies without support from the West. The empire then faced new threats, including the Normans led by Robert Guiscard, who had expelled the Byzantines from Italy and attacked the empire itself, though ultimately unsuccessfully. The Seljuk Turks also made significant advances in Asia Minor and Syria, capturing cities like Antioch and Jerusalem. The relationship with the West became more complex with the Crusades. While ostensibly aimed at liberating Jerusalem, some Byzantines suspected the true goal of some crusaders was Constantinople itself, especially with figures like Bohemond (Robert Guiscard's son) involved. Early groups like the People's Crusade, led by Peter the Hermit, did not improve Byzantine opinions of Westerners. Perhaps the most traumatic event before the final fall was the Fourth Crusade. After internal turmoil and corrupt rulers like Alexius III, a crusader army arrived, ostensibly to restore the legitimate emperor Isaac II and his son Alexius IV. However, these emperors couldn't pay the crusaders the promised sum. This led to the infamous sack of Constantinople by the crusaders in 1204, a disaster worse than the Visigothic sack of Rome. The city was plundered, and a Latin Empire was established, although the Byzantine Empire continued in exile in places like Nicaea. This act deeply damaged the relationship between East and West and weakened Byzantium considerably. It makes you wonder how different the future of the region, and perhaps Europe, might have been if the Fourth Crusade had never happened. Against all odds, the Byzantine Empire, based in Nicaea, eventually managed to retake Constantinople in 1261 under Michael VIII Palaeologus. The Latin garrison was caught off guard while away on a raid, and Nicaean troops, guided by locals, slipped into the city. The Latin Emperor Baldwin II fled, leaving the crown jewels behind. Michael VIII entered the city and was crowned in the Hagia Sophia, marking the return home after 57 years in exile. Michael VIII was an energetic and intelligent ruler who worked to restore the city's morale and defenses, using symbols like the double-headed eagle flag to represent the empire's past glory and reach across two continents. However, despite his efforts, the empire's power was largely diplomatic, and his successors often lacked his skill. Michael VIII himself died excommunicated by the pope, a tragic figure seen by some as a traitor for his attempts at reconciliation with the West. The last two centuries of Byzantine history are often described as discouraging, filled with "petty emperors" and internal strife as the empire crumbled. Yet, amidst this decline, there was a cultural flowering, an "explosion of art, architecture, and science". This was a time of sophistication, with advanced hospitals and medical students studying anatomy, and advances in astronomy. This suggests that even as its political power waned, Byzantium's intellectual and cultural life remained remarkably vibrant. The empire faced the growing threat of the Ottoman Turks. Byzantine emperors, like John V, were forced to become Ottoman vassals. However, there were figures of resilience, such as Manuel II, who became emperor determined the empire should "expire with its head held high". Manuel II traveled to Europe seeking aid, where he was greeted warmly by courts impressed by his dignity and learning, reflecting Europe's burgeoning Renaissance interest in classical culture, which Byzantium had preserved. While he found little concrete military support, a respite came unexpectedly when the Mongol invasion under Timur shattered the Ottoman army, leading to a period of Ottoman civil war. Manuel II even negotiated extraordinary terms from one of the Ottoman princes, regaining territory and being freed from vassalage. He returned to Constantinople a master after leaving as a servant, a moment of brief, illusory triumph. Despite this temporary reprieve, the Ottoman threat returned. Emperors like John VIII continued seeking aid from the West, but Europe was often preoccupied with its own conflicts and demanded the Orthodox Church submit to Rome as a condition for help. Even a Crusade launched in 1443 ended in disaster, leaving Byzantium terribly alone again. The story culminates with the last emperor, Constantine XI Dragases. Facing the overwhelming power of the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II, who was determined to take Constantinople, the empire was abandoned by Western powers. Despite pleas from his ministers to flee and establish a government in exile, Constantine XI refused, choosing to stay with his people to the end. The final siege saw fierce fighting, but the Ottoman forces eventually breached the walls. In the chaos, Constantine XI reportedly flung off his imperial regalia and disappeared into the fighting, a heroic end for the last Roman emperor. The fall of Constantinople on May 29, 1453, marked the extinction of the last vestige of the Roman Empire. However, Byzantium's legacy lived on. Refugees brought Greek and Roman classics to Western Europe, fueling the Renaissance. Byzantine émigrés taught prominent figures and influenced the founding of institutions like the Platonic Academy of Florence. To the East, exiles fled to Russia, which became the last great free Orthodox state, adopting Byzantine symbols like the double-headed eagle and the title Tsar (Caesar). Byzantine art and culture continued to flourish in the Balkans and Russia. The author concludes by lamenting that Byzantium's story has often been forgotten or reduced to a caricature in the West, seen as overly complex or sinister. He argues this view is undeserved and prevents the West from learning lessons from the empire's history, such as its unique balance of church and state, or faith and reason. Despite its struggles, Byzantium left a legacy of stability and unity for over a thousand years in a region often considered unstable. The greatest tragedy, he feels, is not the way it fell, but that its voices and lessons are unheeded. He sees the surviving Theodosian walls of Constantinople as a testament to this epic struggle, a reminder that the Roman Empire did not end in the humiliation of a minor emperor but in the heroism of a Constantine. This briefing only scratches the surface of the events and figures covered in "Lost to the West," but hopefully, it gives you a clear picture of the empire's long and complex history, its vital role in preserving classical culture and defending Europe, and the reasons why its story deserves to be remembered and understood. It certainly highlights the contrast between the enduring "Roman" identity of the East and the narrative constructed in the West that often marginalized it.