Claudian: Poetry and Propaganda

Alan Cameron (born 1938) is a classical scholar from the UK. In the late 1970s he moved to the US where he was Professor of Latin Language and Literature at Columbia University of New York until his retirement in 2008. He is the author of several books and articles about the ancient world, including the following:

* Claudian: Poetry and Propaganda at the Court of Honorius (1970)

* Porphyrius the Charioteer (1973, reprinted 1999)

* Circus Factions: Blues and Greens at Rome and Constantinople (1976, reprinted 1999)

* Barbarians and Politics at the Court of Arcadius (1993)

* The Last Pagans of Rome (hardcover 2011, paperback 2013)

The book about Claudian - reprinted by Oxbow Books in the UK and Powell Books in the US - has more than 500 pages. The main text is divided into fourteen chapters which cover different topics which are relevant for a study of Claudian. Here are some of the topics which are covered in the book:

** “Techniques of the Propagandist” (chapter III)

** “Techniques of the Poet” (chapter X)

** “The Pagan at a Christian Court” (chapter VIII)

** “Claudian’s Audience” (chapter IX)

** “Doctus Poeta” [the learned poet] (chapter XI)

** “Claudian and Rome” (chapter XII)

We do not know much about Claudian, but we know enough to provide a brief biography (where all dates are approximate):

He was born in Alexandria in Egypt in 370. His first language was Greek, but he also learned Latin. In 394 he moved to Italy where he became a professional poet who wrote in Latin. At first he lived in Rome, but later he moved to Milan. In 401 he was married and travelled to Libya for his honeymoon. When he returned to Italy, he lived in Rome. He died in 404.

In his preface, Cameron says:

“For the decade between 395 and 404 Latin poetry became once more in the hands of Claudian what it had been in the Flavian age [69-96]. It was never to be the same again, and it is arguable that Claudian not only revived but killed it as well.”

The works of Claudian, which are preserved until today, can be divided into four groups:

# 1: Praising someone (panegyrics)

*** The Consulate of Probinus and Olybrius (395)

*** The Third Consulate of Honorius (396)
*** Fescennina (396)
*** Epithalamium (396)
*** The Fourth Consulate of Honorius (398)
*** The Consulate of Flavius Theodorus (399)
*** The Consulate of Stilicho (400)
*** The Sixth Consultate of Honorius (404)

# 2: Attacking someone (invectives)

*** In Rufinum (397)

*** In Eutropium (399)

# 3: War reports (epic poems)

*** De Bello Gildonico (398)

*** De Bello Gothico (402)

# 4: Other poems

*** De Raptu Proserpinae (liber I: 396/397, liber II and III: 400/402)

*** 52 short poems known as Carmina Minora

Most of these poems are discussed and analysed in great detail by Cameron; and it is done very well: Cameron tells us not only what Claudian says and why; he also tells us what Claudian does not say and why.

Claudian was hired to write propaganda. This means we have to be very careful when we read his poems: he almost never lies. In most cases he tells the truth. But his truth is partial. He almost never tells the whole truth.

There are important omissions in his poems: he is careful not to say anything negative about his heroes, e.g. Honorius and Stilicho; he is equally careful not to say anything positive about his enemies, e.g. Rufinus and Eutropius.

Claudian is an academic work. Most quotations are given in the original language – Greek, Latin, and French – and most of them are not translated into English. The author assumes the reader has a basic knowledge of Roman and Byzantine history. Therefore this book is not recommended for the beginner.

If, on the other hand, you are already familiar with the ancient world and you wish to learn more, then this could be the right book for you. When you read it, you will get a chance to see a meticulous and thorough scholar at work.

As for any problems concerning the Latin poems of Claudian there are two ways around it:

(1) The Loeb Classical Library has published a complete edition of Claudian’s poems with the Latin original on the left page and an English translation on the right page. The two-volume set, translated by Maurice Platnauer, was published in 1928 and reprinted in 1989. Here is a link:

Volume I

Volume II

(2) Go online and visit “Claudian on Lacus Curtius” where the complete works of Claudian are available in Latin and in English. “Lacus Curtius” is a website established by the US scholar Bill Thayer.

What about illustrations? There is only one illustration in this book: a picture of a diptych (now in the cathedral treasure at Monza) issued in 396 is printed on the frontispiece (and the front cover of the dust jacket). The right section shows Stilicho, while the left section shows his wife Serena and his son Eucherius.

There is no picture of Claudian, because we do not know what he looks like. A bronze statue of the poet was erected in Trajan’s Forum in Rome in 400, but the statue does not exist anymore. The statue base with a bilingual inscription (in Greek and in Latin) has been preserved (and today it is placed in the National Museum of Naples).

Cameron mentions the statue several times. On page 361 he says:

“A bronze statue erected in the forum by the senate and emperors of Rome. Not bad for a Greek poet not yet 30.”

On page 490 he refers to a book, which includes at photo of the statue base with the inscription. While the reference is helpful, it would have been better if he had included a photo of the inscription in his book.

Cameron gives the official reference – CIL VI, 1710 (= ILS 2949) – and quotes a few words from it, but unfortunately he does not give the whole text. Here it is:

[In Latin: 13 lines]

Cl. Claudiani v.c.
Claudio Claudiano v.c, tri-
buno et notario, inter ceteras
decentes artes praegloriosissimo
poetarum, licet ad memoriam sem-
piternam carmina ab eodem
scripta sufficiant, adtamen
testimonii gratia ob iudicii sui
fidem, dd. nn. Arcadius et Honorius
felicissimi et doctissimi
imperatores senatu petente
statuam in foro divi Traiani
erigi collocari iusserunt.

“To Claudius Claudianus vir clarissimus, son of Claudius Claudianus vir clarissimus, tribune, and notary, master of the ennobling arts, but above all a poet and most famous of poets, though his own poems are enough to ensure his immortality, yet in thankful memory of his discretion and loyalty, their serene and learned majesties, the emperors Arcadius and Honorius have - following the wishes of the senate – ordered this statue to be erected and placed in the Forum of the divine emperor Trajan.”

[In Greek: 4 lines]

Εἰν ἑνὶ Βιργιλίοιο νόον
καὶ Μοῦσαν Ὁμήρου
Κλαυδιανὸν Ῥώμη καὶ
Βασιλῆς ἔθεσαν.

“Rome and her kings - In a single man, the mind of Virgil and the inspiration of Homer.”

In my opinion, having a bilingual inscription is a fitting way to praise a poet whose first language was Greek and whose second language was Latin.

As stated above, Claudian is an academic work. It is not an easy read. But if you persevere, you will be rewarded, because you will learn a lot about the life and times of Claudian and get a chance to see how a modern scholar can analyse and interpret the words of an ancient poet.

PS # 1 – For a discussion about the birthplace of the poet, please see the following: Peter G. Christiansen, “Claudian: A Greek or a Latin?” Scholia (ns), vol. 6, 1997, pp. 79-95; and Bret Mulligan, “The Poet from Egypt?” Philologus, vol. 151, no. 2, 2009, pp. 285-310.

PS# 2 – For a recent study of Claudian and his works, see Catherine Ware, Claudian and the Roman Epic Tradition (Cambridge University Press, 2012).

* * *

Alan Cameron,

Claudian: Poetry and Propaganda at the Court of Honorius,

Oxford University Press, 1970, 508 pages

* * *

 

 

 

 

The Rise and Fall of the Great Empires (1)

Introduction

Andrew Taylor is a journalist and a writer. As a journalist he has written for many newspapers and magazines, including the Sunday Times. He is the author of several books, including The World of Gerard Mercator: The Mapmaker who revolutionized Geography (hardcover 2004, paperback 2005). The book under review here covers the rise and fall of several empires from antiquity to the present day.

There are 25 chapters, with each chapter covering one empire, except for one chapter which covers two empires (Spain and Portugal). Why? No reason is given for this exception. Maybe because these two states were ruled by the same king for a brief period of time (1580-1640), or maybe simply because the author and the publisher feel that 25 is a nice, round number. Each chapter includes a map of the empire in question, a timeline with important dates and a list of kings or emperors of the empire in question. The book begins with an introduction and ends with a bibliography and an index.

The 25 chapters do not have the same length. Some are short, they get only four pages each: the Sumerian, the Aksum, the Chola, the Songhai Empires and the final chapter which is called "A New World Empire?" Some are long, they get 20 pages each: the Roman and the British Empires. The remaining 18 chapters range somewhere between six and sixteen pages.

This is a beautiful book, but the text is terrible. In fact, the best thing I can say about this book is that it has many beautiful illustrations. The text is a total disappointment, for three reasons. The first reason is the general composition of the book, or the choice of empires: three important empires are missing. The second reason is the bibliography: the list of titles is incomplete and obsolete. The third reason is the text: there is a large number of factual errors, misunderstandings, and omissions of important facts.

Three empires are missing

Regarding the first reason: in the introduction, on page 7, Taylor explains his choice of empires with these words:

 

"The choice of which empires to include is anything but arbitrary; irrespective of their duration or geographical extent, the 25 discussed here have all left an indelible imprint on world history."

 

I have no problem with the empires which are included here, but three empires are missing: the ancient Egyptian Empire and the modern French and Japanese Empires. These empires are relevant in any book about empires, and especially if we are to follow Taylor's own criteria. How can he exclude them?

The French Empire is mentioned by the publisher on the inside of the dust jacket:

 

"Some empires, like Hitler's Third Reich, rise and fall with dizzying swiftness over a short period; others, like the British and French colonial empires, grow gradually over the centuries, only to crumble much more speedily than they had expanded."

Isn't it strange that the publisher's announcement on the inside of the dust jacket mentions the French Empire, when this empire is not covered in the book? The omission of three important empires is a reason for serious disappointment.

Incomplete and obsolete

Regarding the second reason: the bibliography is very short. There is only one page with 28 titles which are listed in alphabetical order by the author's last name. This is often a good idea, but not in this case. Since the book has 25 chapters, and since each chapter covers one empire (with the exception mentioned above), obviously, the bibliography should follow the same pattern.

There should be 26 sections containing two or three titles about each empire. In addition, there should be a section containing some titles about empires in general. Taylor has one title like this: A. Motyl, Imperial Ends: The Decay, Collapse and Revival of Empires (2001). However, he does not cite Paul M. Kennedy, Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500-2000, an important work that was published in 1988.

There are two titles about Alexander the Great, two titles about the Incas, two titles about China, two titles about the Mongols and two titles about the Soviet Union, but not a single title about the Songhai Empire, the Aztec Empire or the Spanish Empire. What is included or not included here seems rather arbitrary. As a consequence, the bibliography is incomplete.

The titles are not exactly up to date. Only six of the 28 titles are published after 2000. The oldest title is from 1955. As a consequence, the bibliography is obsolete. An incomplete and obsolete bibliography is a reason for serious disappointment.

Factual errors and misprints

Regarding the third reason: it is obvious that a book like this will contain many dates. You would expect the author and the publisher to take great care that these dates are correct. However, it seems they have not done so. There is an incredible number of factual errors. You do not have to be an expert to see this. In many cases the author gives conflicting dates for the same person or the same event. Every careful reader can see that something is wrong here.

Regarding dates, Taylor says in his introduction, on page 7, that "certain start or end dates may appear contentious, but the rationale for their placement is consistently explained." I have no problem with alternative dates for the start or the end of a dynasty or an empire, if you have a good reason for them. But if you want to do this, you should at least be consistent, and Taylor is not. In many cases he gives two sometimes even three different dates for the same dynasty or the same empire.

Moreover, his statement that "the rationale for their placement is consistently explained" is simply not true. A case in point is the British Empire which is said to begin in 1584. This date is never explained. In fact, the year 1584 is never mentioned in the chapter about this empire.

Why 1584? In that year, Sir Walter Raleigh received a patent from Queen Elizabeth to start a colony  in the Americas. This could be the reason why Taylor picked this date. I do not know, because he never explains his choice. Anyway, if you want to pick a starting point for the British Empire, why not pick 1588? This is the year when the British fleet defeated the "invincible" Spanish Armada, and this really was the beginning of an empire.

Let us now take a look at the factual errors, misunderstadings and omissions of important facts in this book, going from the first to the last chapter. The Assyrian Empire is covered on pages 12-19. The text on page 16 mentions Tiglath-pileser III and his road to power: "In 754 BC, a revolt by the army brought a military leader to power. He took the name Tiglath-pileser III…" However, the list of kings on the same page says he ruled 745-727 BC. If you look at the dates - 754 and 745 - it is easy to see what happened here: the last two digits were switched around. The text (754) is wrong, and the list of kings (745) is right. A factual error like this can easily happen, but it should have been discovered and corrected before the manuscript was printed.

There are more cases like this. The headline for the chapter on Alexander the Great (page 39) dates his empire 336-323 BC, which is correct. However, the table of contents says 336-332 BC, which is wrong. The last two digits have been switched around. The timeline on page 190 says Babur the Tiger was born in 1438, which is wrong. The correct date is 1483. Again, the last two digits have been switched around,  but how can the general reader know?

Factual errors like these can be explained as misprints. And misprints do happen. On page 47, for instance, we read about  "the Antigonid and Selencid empires." Selencid is a misprint for Seleucid. On page 220 we read about "the Ausrian army," which is a misprint for the Austrian army. Maybe misprints like these are only small mistakes, but I point them here out because they are symptomatic of the careless attitude and lack of precision that dominate most chapters of this book.

Cyrus, Darius and Xerxes

The Persian Empire is covered on pages 20-31. On page 21 Taylor says king Cyrus II, known as Cyrus the Great, "succeeded his father Cambyses I to the throne of Anshan … in 559 BC." But in the same sentence Taylor adds the dates for his rule: 558-529 BC. The first is right, the second wrong. The sidebar on page 26 says 559-529 BC, while the list of Persian kings on page 30 says 558-529. Again, the first is right, the second is wrong.

How about Darius I? The text on page 25 says he ruled 522-485 BC, which is wrong. The sidebar on page 26 says 521-486, which is right. The timeline on page 30 repeats the right dates: 521-486. Here we have two right and one wrong.

The confusion continues with Xerxes. The text on page 27 says he ruled 485-465, which is wrong. The timeline on page 30 says 486-465, which is right. The text on page 33 repeats the wrong dates: 485-465. Here we have two wrong and one right.

There is more confusion regarding Darius II and Darius III. The timeline on page 22 says Darius II died in 405 BC, which is correct. But then he seems to come back to life again: the timeline on page 25 says "Succession of Darius II" in 336 BC, and "Darius II killed" in 330 BC. What happened here? The last two entries are not for Darius II, but for Darius III, two very unfortunate misprints.

Sulla, Pompey and Crassus

The Roman Empire is covered on pages 48-67. On page 51 Taylor mentions the conflict between the upper class (patricians) and the common people (plebeians). This conflict is real and relevant, however it belongs to the old republic. As time went by, the plebeians broke the monopoly that the patricians used to have on seats in the senate and political office. During the last hundred years of the Roman Republic we have a new conflict between the optimates, the old upper class which had its power base in the senate, and the populares, the new upper class which used the popular assemblies to further their interests. But Taylor does not seem to know this. On page 55 he says: "Sulla's loyalty had been to the patricians in the senate, but Pompey and Crassus allied themselves with the plebeians." This is a misunderstanding. Sulla was loyal to the optimates, while Pompey and Crassus supported the populares.

On page 56 Taylor writes: "One of Caesar's first priorities was to be elected consul, which he achieved in 59 BC." This passage shows that Taylor does not know how the Roman political system worked. Roman consuls and most other magistrates were elected in the summer of one year, after which they would serve from January to December of the following year. In this way they had some time to get ready for the new job. Caesar was elected in 60 BC, but he served in 59 BC. The timeline on page 50 makes the same mistake when it says "Caesar elected consul" in 59 BC.

In the United States, they have a similar system for the president who is elected in November of one year, after which he is inaugurated in January of the following year. In this way the candidate has some time to get ready for the new job.

On page 57 Taylor mentions Mark Anthony, Marcus Aemilius Lepidus and Octavian, Caesar's heir, later known as Augustus. The three victorious generals agreed to rule the empire together, at least for a while. But soon they had a falling out. First Octavian pushed Lepidus to the side, and then he went to war with Mark Anthony. Taylor mentions the battle of Actium in 31 BC in which Octavian defeated Mark Anthony and Cleopatra of Egypt. Then he continues: "Octavian, sole survivor of the three men who had shared out the empire, was left as the unchallenged ruler of Rome." This wording is unfortunate. Mark Anthony killed himself in 30 BC following his defeat at Actium, but Lepidus was still alive. As Taylor says, Lepidus did not die until 13 BC. Octavian was unchallenged, true, but he was not the "sole survivor" of the three men who had shared out the empire.

On page 62 there is a portrait of Nero, the last of the Julio-Claudian line, who was emperor AD 54-68. The caption reads in part: "His massive new imperial palace (the 'Golden House') dominated the heart of Rome." On page 63 there is a picture of the Flavian amphitheatre, better known as the Colosseum. The caption reads in part: "Construction of this magnificent amphitheatre, which could seat some 50,000 spectators, was begun by Vespasian in AD 70."

These two illustrations are facing each other on opposite pages. It is probably just a coincidence, but there is in fact an interesting connection between them. Taylor does not mention this, maybe because he does not know about it. Parts of Nero's Golden House (Domus Aurea) was built on land that was confiscated from the people. After his death most of the palace was pulled down. The Colosseum was built where Nero had an artificial lake. Vespasian wanted to return the land to the people and to use it for a building which would provide entertainment for the people for many tears to come. In this way, there is a subtle connection between the two illustrations.

Han, Tang and Ming

The Chinese Empire is covered on pages 68-79. Taylor seems to be a bit confused about the Han dynasty. The list of dynasties and emperors on page 78 says it ruled 206 BC-AD 220. But the caption to the map on page 73 says 202 BC-AD 220. The first is right, the second wrong. Taylor is also confused about the first Han emperor who ruled under the name Han Gaozu. The text on page 72 says he ruled 202-195 BC. But the list of dynasties and emperors on page 78 says 206-195 BC. This time the first is wrong, the second is right.

The traditional dates for the Tang dynasty are 618-907. The list of dynasties and emperors on page 78 says 619-907, which is wrong, but almost correct. The timeline on page 70 says Li Yuan rebelled (in 617) and later (in 619) seized power as emperor Gaozu. Again, these dates are wrong, but almost correct.

On page 74, Taylor describes the beginning of the Tang dynasty: "Li Yuan's Tang dynasty held power in China for nearly 300 years, but the first emperor, who reigned as Gaozu (r. 618-26) was ousted after only a few months by his son, who took the reign name Taizong (r. 627-49)."

If you look at the text, you will see that Taylor contradicts himself. The first emperor ruled for eight years (618-626). Consequently, he was not ousted by his son "after only a few months." Moreover, Gaozu did not die when his son took over in 626, as Taylor implies, he lived on as a retired emperor until 635.

Taylor is also somewhat confused about Chinese geography. On page 72 he mentions the old capital Xian in central China and the new capital Beijing in the north. He says Xian is located "about 400 miles (640 km) southwest of Bejing." But this is not true. The distance between the two towns is almost twice as long: Xian is located some 750 miles (1200 km) southwest of Beijing.

The Ming dynasty (1368-1644) is covered on pages 78-79. Here Taylor mentions the third Ming emperor Yongle (also known as Zhu Di, 1402-1424) who "resumed attempts to expand the empire, building a huge navy and recruiting a standing army of a million men. The Song and Yuan [dynasties] had built ships both for war and for trade, but nothing on this scale. Ancient records suggest that over 1600 new ships were built, creating a navy of some 3750 vessels."

This is true. But Taylor never mentions the admiral Zheng He, who led seven expeditions to foreign lands (1405-1433). Why not? Instead, Taylor explains how other nations came to China to pay homage to the Chinese emperor in 1421, the year in which Zheng He left China on the sixth of his seven expeditions:

"Other Asian nations sent tribute to the Ming emperor - in 1421 a fleet of ships brought rulers and envoys of 28 nations from  as far away as Arabia, Africa and India to pay homage."

Given Taylor's silence about Zheng He, it is quite surprising to find a book about him cited in his bibliography: 1421 - The Year that China Discovered the World (2002). This book, written by Gavin Menzies, focuses on the admiral and his expeditions to foreign lands. If Taylor knows about this book, why does he not show this in his chapter on the Chinese Empire?

Two different answers

The Byzantine Empire is covered on pages 84-95. How long did it last? The traditional answer is from 395 to 1453, that is 1,058 years. The end of this empire (1453) is not in doubt, but the start could be. Taylor gives us two different answers to this question, one is absurd, the other maybe plausible, but still doubtful.

On page 85 Taylor tells us that Byzantine emperors "ruled in Constantinople for nearly 1,400 years." This is absurd. His own headline on the same page dates this empire 330-1453, that is 1,123 years, a far cry from "nearly 1,400 years."

While the start date given in the headline may be plausible, it is still questionable. Taylor is counting from 330, the year when Constantine (later known as the Great) moved the capital of the empire from Rome to Byzantium after which the name of the city was changed to Constantinople.

But this start date is not very good. It makes more sense to count from 395, when the empire was divided into a western and an eastern part. Today the eastern empire is known as the Byzantine Empire. If we count from 395 to 1453, we find it has a duration of 1,058 years.

On page 88 Taylor mentions Emperor Leo III (717-741) who introduced "a ban on the use of statues, paintings and icons in religious worship" in 726. Taylor does not say when the ban was introduced, but he does say when it was cancelled and how long he thinks it lasted: "The conflict lasted for more than 120 years, causing sporadic revolts across the empire and bedevilling relations with [the pope in] Rome, until Empress Theodora (r. 842-855) finally accepted in 843 that the icons could be brought back into church."

If you count from 726 to 843, you will find that the ban was in force for 117 years, so Taylor's statement about "more than 120 years" of conflict is wrong. The policy of banning pictures from the church is known as iconoclasm, a Greek word meaning "smash the pictures," which Taylor never uses. Why not use the word by which this special period is generally known to the world today?

* * *

 

Go to the next installment:

 

The Rise and Fall of the Great Empires (2)

 

* * *

 

 

 

 

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)

 

* * *

 

 

 

 

 

The Rise and Fall of the Great Empires (3)

 

Magellan and Drake

The empires of Spain and Portugal are covered on pages 178-187. Here Ferdinand Magellan - the Portuguese sailor who served under the king of Spain - is mentioned three times, but each time the information given is inaccurate. The timeline on page 180 says: "1519-22: Magellan's circumnavigation of the globe." The dates are right, and Magellan was the leader of this expedition in the beginning, but he died in 1521, when the expedition reached the Philippines. On the last part of the trip, from the Philippines to Spain (1521-22), the leader was Juan Sebastián El Cano.

The caption to the illustration on page 181 reads: "A contemporary map showing the route taken by Ferdinand Magellan, who made the first succesful circumnavigation of the globe." The route is correct, but as explained above, Magellan died on the way. He did not make "the first succesful circumnavigation," some members of his crew did.

The text on page 180 mentions Portugal's attempt to control the Indian Ocean: "Occasional foreign incursions such as the 1522 Spanish-backed expedition of Ferdinand Magellan (1480-1521) or the circumnavigation by Sir Francis Drake (c. 1540-96) in 1577 caused angry diplomatic protests, but did not threaten Portugal's supremacy."

Magellan died in 1521, as Taylor notes in his text. Now the question is: if Magellan died in 1521, how could he have anything to do with a Spanish-backed expedition in 1522? The answer is the Spanish-backed expedition began in 1519 with Magellan as its leader, and it ended in 1522 with Juan Sebastián El Cano as its leader.

The information about Drake is also inaccurate. His trip began in 1577 and ended in 1580. By giving just one year, Taylor implies the trip was completed within this year, which would have been impossible with the ships available at the time. The timeline on page 196 (in the chapter on the British Empire) says: "1577: Francis Drake begins his circumnavigation of the world." This information is accurate, but still incomplete, since we are not told when the trip was completed.

Taylor is a journalist. Maybe that is why he tries to say many things with a few words. But sometimes this is not possible. Sometimes the facts are complicated. What should you do? Use more words and get the story right, or simply let it go. Unfortunately, Taylor chooses the middle way, which makes his account inaccurate, incomplete and confusing.

Babur and Shajahan

The Mughal Empire is covered on pages 188-193. The first ruler of this empire is Babur the Tiger, but the information given about him and his road to power is very confusing. First, on page 189, we hear this: "Babur the Tiger (r. 1526-30) succeeded to the throne of the Central Asian kingdom of Fergana … when he was only 13 years old." Later, on the same page, we hear this: "By the time he inflicted a crushing defeat on the Afghan ruler of northern India …, at the first Battle of Panipap in 1526, Babur was in his forties."

At first we assume he is 13 years old in 1526 when his rule begins. But later we learn that in that year he is in his forties. Now we are confused, and we have a question: when is Babur born? The timeline on page 190 says 1438, but this does not really help us. If anything, it only adds to the the confusion. If Babur is born in 1438, he must be a very old man in 1526, in his eighties, and certainly not in his forties. Clearly, something is wrong here.

Babur is not born in 1438. As explained earlier, the last two digits of the year have been switched around. He is born in 1483. Now we begin to understand. When he was 12 or 13 years old - in 1495 or 1496 - Babur succeeded to the throne of Fergana, a small kingdom, but his rule of the Mughal empire does not begin until 1526, when he is in his forties. Why does Taylor have to make everything so complicated?

Babur the Tiger claimed descent from both Genghis Khan and Timur the Lame. Where did the latter person lead his life? On page 189 he is described as "a 14th-century conqueror who ravaged much of Central Asia." But the caption to the illustration on page 145 (in the chapter on the Mongols) describes him as a "central European warlord." So which one is it? The first description is correct, the last one is wrong. Timur the Lame operated in Central Asia, not in Central Europe.

Shahjahan, the sixth emperor of the Mughal Empire, is famous for building the Taj Mahal, considered by many to be one of the most beautiful buildings in the world. It was built as a mausoleum for his wife, Mumtaz Mahal, who died in 1631. But when did Shahjahan rule? The text on page 191 says 1627-58. The list of emperors on page 193 gives the same dates. But it is wrong. The sidebar "The Taj Mahal" on page 192 says 1628-58, and this is correct.

India and North America

The British Empire is covered on pages 194-213. According to Taylor, this empire had two types of colonies. One type was India where the British found "an established and prosperous civilization." Unfortunately for India, the British felt they had to destroy this civilization in order to control the Indian territory. The other type was North America where the British found "a largely unsettled land" (page 195). While the description of India is correct, the description of North America is wrong.

In the old days, many people believed all Native Americans were nomads who lived in tents and hunted buffaloes. This view is wrong, and has been disproved many times, but some people - including Taylor - still cling to the old view. I could cite many sources to prove this point, but I will mention only one: Justin Pollard, The Story of Archaeology in 50 Great Discoveries, published by Quercus in 2007. The Indian civilization in Mesa Verde, that was discovered in 1888, is covered in the chapter on pages 88-93. On page 88 Pollard writes "this was not a pristine, empty environment, but an ancient settled land…"

I have a question for the publisher here. In 2007, Quercus published a book whose author tries to show that some Native Americans had a civilization and lived in houses prior to the European invasion. In 2008, Quercus published a book whose author seems to believe the old myth that the Native Americans were nomads who lived in "a largely unsettled land." My question is: do the the editors of Quercus ever read the books that they publish?

On page 196 Taylor mentions the Mayflower which carried the Pilgrim Fathers to the new world. He says they landed in 1621. The timeline on the same page gives the same date. But it is wrong. The Mayflower left England in September 1620 and arrived in Massachusetts Bay in November of the same year. This date is a milestone in US history (although, of course, the US was not yet established by then). How can Taylor get this important date wrong - two times?

The caption to the picture on page 199 reads as follows: "This undated illustration shows Britannia, a symbol of Great Britain for over 2000 years. She was often depicted as ruler of the seas of the British empire."

I am afraid Taylor is stretching history a bit too far here. I think the figure must be 200 years - and not 2000 years!

William Pitt and Napoleon Bonaparte

The caption to the illustration on page 202 reads as follows: "Cartoon from c. 1809 showing William Pitt and Napoleon Bonaparte dividing the globe between their two nations, after the signing of the Treaty of Amiens temporarily ended hostilities between the United Kingdom and France."

There is a problem here. William Pitt died in 1806, as Taylor notes on the next page. Is he likely to be the object of a cartoon three years after his death? I do not think so. The cartoon is very famous. It was created by the British caricaturist James Gillray (whose name is sometimes spelled Gilray). The official title of the cartoon is "The plumb-pudding in danger." The creator also noted the date, 26 February 1805, at which time Pitt was still alive. Why does Taylor want to date this cartoon to around 1809, when we know exactly when it was made?

On page 203 Taylor mentions the battle of Trafalgar: "The naval defeat of the French and Spanish forces at Trafalgar in 1805 not only gave Britain mastery over the French at sea, it also provided the basis for the growth of a new and powerful empire stretching around the world." The battle is also mentioned in the caption to the picture on the same page. Again, the date is 1805. But the timeline on page 200 says the battle took place in 1804. So which one is it? 1804 or 1805?

The date is a milestone in British history, as is clear from Taylor's own description, quoted above. How can there be any doubt? The battle took place on 21 October 1805. How can Taylor give the wrong date in his timeline?

On page 204 Taylor mentions the infamous Opium Wars of 1839-42 and 1856-60. The dates given in the text are correct. But the timeline on page 200 says "1840: First Opium War with China," which is not quite correct. Taylor says the wars lead to the Treaty of Nanking in 1842, which is true. He says further that it gave the East India Company access to markets in China, which is also true, "and also leased them a base at Hong Kong." This passage is wrong and shows that Taylor does not know the basic facts about Hong Kong's history. The British base at Hong Kong was developed in three stages.

*** Stage 1: Britain captures the island of Hong Kong in 1841. China has to cede this territory to Britain as part of the settlement after the first war.

*** Stage 2: Britain takes over Kowloon Peninsula in 1860. China has to cede this territory to Britain as part of the settlement after the second war.

*** Stage 3: Britain leases the so-called New Territories in 1898 for a period of 99 years.

This lease expired in 1997, as Taylor mentions on page 213: "Hong Kong was handed back to China at the expiry of its lease in 1997." But the lease dates from 1898, not 1842, as Taylor seems to think, and it covers only the New Territories, not the whole base, but the whole base was handed back to China in 1997.

The Boers and the British

On page 207 Taylor mentions the Boers of South Africa: "The Transvaal had been established as a homeland by the Boers, Afrikaner farmers of Dutch origin, who left the Cape earlier in the century rather than accept British rule…" Actually, the word is usually spelled "Afrikaaner" with a double A to mark the Dutch origin and the langauge that many of them speak: Afrikaans.

On pages 208-209 Taylor mentions the Boer war:

"By the end of 1899, the British and the Boer settlers were at war… It was the first time British soldiers had faced such a campaign, and they sustained heavy losses over the next two years, before the war ended with the Treaty of Vereenining."

According to the text, the war took place from 1899 to 1901. The timeline on page 200 gives the same dates: "1899: Start of Boer War" and "1901: Treaty of Vereenining." The war began in 1899, as he says, but it did not end in 1901. It ended in 1902. The treaty of Vereenining was signed on 31 May 1902. Vereenining is the name of the town in Transvaal where the treaty was signed.

The British Commonwealth of Nations is mentioned twice. On page 195 (in the beginning of the chapter) Taylor says it is "an association of 53 independent nation-states." But on page 213 (at the end of the chapter) he says: "There is also the Commonwealth of Nations, in which the United Kingdom, 52 former British colonies and Mozambique, formerly ruled by Portugal, are linked as a voluntary association of independent states."

From page 195 to page 213, membership seems to have grown from 53 to 54. Which one is it? 53 or 54? And is Mozambique, a former Portuguese colony, really a member of the British Commonwealth? Mozambique is indeed a member, having joined the association in 1995. The first figure is right: there are 53 members, i.e. the UK, 51 former British territories and Mozambique. Why is it so hard for Taylor to get the facts right?

Pius VI and Pius VII

The Napoleonic Empire is covered on pages 214-227. On page 216 Taylor mentions Napoleon's "reorganization of the police, the educational system, the judiciary and above all the army," adding one brief sentence about his relations with the Vatican state: "He also repaired relations between the French Republic and the papacy."

This statement is very strange considering the actual relations between Napoleon and the Vatican state. Pope Pius VI had the office 1775-1799. How did Napoleon deal with him? In February 1798 French troops entered Italy. When Pius VI refused to obey Napoleon's orders, he was taken prisoner and transported from one place to another, ending up in the citadel of Valence where he died in August 1799, six weeks after his arrival there. However, he was not buried until January 1800. Later his body was exhumated and transported to Rome where it was re-buried in February 1802.

The caption to the picture on page 217 reads as follows: "The concordat of 1801, signed between Napoleon I and Pope Pius VII, assured the Roman Catholic Church's position as the majority church of France and restored some of its civil status, which was lost during the revolution."

Pope Pius VII had the office 1800-1823. How did Napoleon deal with him? There was a Concordat of 1801. Napoleon and his allies ruled many Catholic lands, and so he realised that it would be a good thing for him if he appeared to have a good relationship with the Vatican state. But most of what was in the Concordat of 1801 was dictated by Napoleon. The pope just had to obey.

In 1804 Pius VII travelled to Paris for Napoleon's coronation. In the old days, the political leader would travel to Rome to be crowned by the religious leader. But this time it was the other way around. Maybe the pope thought he was going to crown Napoleon, but it did not happen like that. Pius VII was present, but Napoleon crowned himself. This small gesture was very important, because in this way Napoleon showed the pope and the world that he was above the pope.

Around 1808, Napoleon's army seized the papal lands in Italy. When Pius VII protested, his protest was ignored, and he himself was a virtual prisoner for several years. He was not able to return to Rome until May 1814 when Napoleon was beginning to lose his power.

The truth is that Napoleon dominated and humiliated two popes in a row, Pius VI and Pius VII. Taylor's claim that Napoleon "repaired relations" between the French Republic and the papacy is a very strange statement which reveals a serious misunderstanding of European history around the year 1800.

Towards the end of this chapter, on page 226, Taylor writes just three lines about Napoleon's son, who was known as the King of Rome, but even this brief passage is inaccurate: "Napoleon Bonaparte's son, who was born three years before Waterloo and died at the age of 21, was considered Napoleon II, even though he never held any political office."

Napoleon II was born on 20 March 1811, that is fours years - not three years - before his father's final defeat at Waterloo in June 1815. He died on 22 July 1832, so he did live to be 21. This time Taylor got it right!

Hitler and Stalin

The Third Reich is covered on pages 228-235. On page 229 Taylor mentions some of Hitler's political tricks in the beginning of 1933: "He bullied parliament into passing the Enabling Act, which gave his personal decrees the force of law. Germany's democratic government had voted itself out of power."

This wording is wrong. It was not the government, but rather the parliament which had voted itself out of power. The government, led by Hitler, had a lot of power, and Hitler used it to further his own political goals.

On page 232 Taylor mentions the pact concluded between Germany and the Soviet Union in august 1939: "In August, despite his opposition to communism, his purges of communists at home, and his frequently repeated contempt for the Slavs of Eastern Europe, Hitler also signed a non-aggresion pact with Soviet leader Joseph Stalin (1870-1953)."

Hitler and Stalin made the pact, but they never signed it. Foreign Minister Ribbentrop signed on behalf of Germany, while Foreign Minister Molotov signed on behalf of the Soviet Union. On page 239 (in the chapter on the Soviet empire) there is a picture of the signing ceremony in Moscow. The picture shows Molotov sitting at the desk while he is signing the pact. Stalin and Ribbentrop are standing in the background. But the caption to the picture does not mention any names.

The text on page 239 says "Stalin signed the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact with Hitler's foreign minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop (1893-1946)." Once again this is wrong, since Stalin never signed the pact. Molotov is not mentioned anywhere, although the picture shows him signing the pact.

By the way, Stalin was not born in 1870, as stated in the quote from page 232. The date of his birth is a bit of a mystery. According to several official documents, he was born on 18 December 1878. This date was also used by himself until 1921. But from 1922, he changed his date of birth to 21 December 1879, and while he was the leader of the Soviet Union, his birthday was celebrated on 21 December. From 1922, he lied himself about one year younger than he really was. Stalin's date of birth is mentioned again on page 239, and here Taylor says 1879. This is the version that Stalin used while he was in power, but actually it is not correct.

How many members?

The Soviet Empire is covered on pages 236-245. On page 238 Taylor mentions the establishment of the Soviet Union in 1922 and the six founding members:

** Russia

** Byelorussia (now Belarus)
** Ukraine
** Georgia
** Armenia
** Azerbaijan

On pages 239-240 he mentions the three Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which were annexed (against their will) during World War II. By now we know of nine members. But on page 237 Taylor says the USSR comprised 15 "union republics." What about the remaining members? He never tells us anything about them. But we want to know. Who are they and when did they join? Here are the (modern) names and the dates of entry:

** 1924 - Uzbekistan

** 1925 - Turkmenistan
** 1929 - Tajikistan
** 1936 - Kazakstan and Kirgyzstan
** 1940 - Moldova

By the way, for a few years, the USSR comprised sixteen members, but it seems Taylor does not know this. We have to add the Karelo-Finnish Republic which existed from 1940 until 1956. This republic was established after the winter war between Finland and the USSR (1939-1940), which Taylor mentions on page 239. In 1956, it was dissolved and its territory was downgraded to an autonomous region which was a part of the Russian republic. Today this territory is still a part of Russia.

During World War II the Soviet Union also established a naval base at Porkkala, 30 km west of the Finnish capital Helsinki. But in 1956 the base was evacuated and handed back to Finland. At the time many people in Finland took these steps as a sign that the Soviet Union did not have any further designs on Finnish territory.

Taylor's failure to mention the shortlived Karelo-Finnish republic and the naval base at Porkkala constitutes an omission of an important fact.

On page 240 Taylor says "Romania was pressured into handing over Bessarabia, which stretched north from the Black Sea, as well as northern Bukovina, in the east of the country," but he never says what happened to these territories after World War II or after the dissolution of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991. Bessarabia corresponds (more or less) to the republic of Moldova which was annexed in 1940. Today it is an independent country whose name appears on the map on page 243. Northern Bukovina was incorporated into the republic of Ukraine.

Katyn

On page 240 Taylor also mentions the horrible massacre of Katyn:

"An insight into the brutality of Soviet tactics in this conflict came some years later, with the discovery in woods near Katyn, in eastern Poland, of the remains of some 15,000 Polish officers and others, who had been summarily executed there on Stalin's orders."

Two things are wrong here: in the first place, Katyn is not in eastern Poland, it is in western Russia, some 15 kilometers west of the Russian town of Smolensk. Secondly, while more than 15,000 Polish officers and other members of the Polish elite went missing during the war, this number of bodies was not found at Katyn, only some 4,500 bodies were found there.

The rest of the missing bodies were buried in two other places: Kharkiv and Mednoye. But these mass graves were not discovered until 1990 when the Soviet authorities finally accepted responsibility for the killing. More than 15,000 Polish bodies were found in the three mass graves.

In July 2000 a Katyn memorial, sponsored by Poland and Russia, was dedicated at the site. Katyn is still a very emotional topic in Poland and Russia, but officially the two states are reconciled.

It is, of course, a good idea to mention Katyn, because it is an important symbol of the difficult times and hard conditions which existed during this period, but it is sad to see that Taylor does not know where it is and he never bothered to find out. How can he be so careless with regard to the details of the story he wants to tell?

On this page Taylor also mentions the territorial gains the Soviet Union made in the east during the last days of World War II:

"… in the eventual peace settlement the Russians regained territory on the island of Sakhalin and the town of Port Arthur (now Lüshun), both of which had been part of the Russian empire in the 19th century."

It is true that the Soviet Union took over the town of Port Arthur which had been a part of tsarist Russia for a few years (1898-1905) before World War I. Russia had to cede the town to Japan after its defeat in the war of 1905. But the town was handed back to China in 1955, and this fact is not mentioned by Taylor. His account about Port Arthur is incomplete.

On page 243 Taylor mentions the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Then he continues: "The next year [= 1980] US elections saw Ronald Reagan (1911-2004) come to power as president…"

This wording is not quite right. As explained earlier, the US president is elected in November of one year, after which he is inaugurated in January of the following year. In this way the candidate has some time to get ready for the new job. Ronald Reagan was elected president in November 1980 and inaugurated in January 1981.

Conclusion

This book has 25 chapters, and in 16 of them, I have found a large number of factual errors, misunderstandings and omissions of important facts. Obviously, there could be more mistakes in this book. Perhaps I was not able spot them all. In its present form, this book looks like the first draft of a manuscript which has to be edited and corrected, but unfortunately, and incredibly, Quercus went ahead and published the manuscript in its present form, disregarding its obvious and serious weaknesses.

A famous proverb says: "You can't judge a book by its cover." In this case it is certainly true: the cover is beautiful, but the text between the covers is terrible. However, now the damage has been done, and the book stands as a monument of embarrassment not only to the author but also to the publisher.

At the end of this long review, one important question comes to mind: can a journalist write - or should a journalist even try to write - a book like this? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the person. The journalist does have an advantage (or a strength). He/she is trained to compress a large amount of information into an account that is short and clear. The journalist will never get lost in an endless discussion about some minor detail which may seem very important to the professional scholar.

On the other hand, the journalist also has a disadvantage (or a weakness). He/she does not really know the history of these empires, does not know the primary sources or the modern research that is based on them. The journalist may make elementary mistakes which the professional scholar would never make or omit important facts which the professional scholar would never forget.

Having read this book I know what Taylor should have done. He should not have tried to write this book. Obviously, the job was too big for him. Instead he should have contacted 29 professional scholars - one for each empire - and asked them to write an article on the empire on which he/she is a specialist. Minimum 5-10 pages, maximum 15-20 pages. Taylor would be the editor of these articles; turn them into clear and readable accounts, and make sure they all used the same dates for dynasties and empires, in order to avoid conflicting information about the same person or the same event. Of course, conflicting opinions would be welcome, since it is always interesting to study different interpretations of the historical sources and the historical events.

Clearly, Taylor did not understand this. He wanted to write the book himself. But his publisher should have told him to give it up and should have asked him to become the editor of a collection of contributions from professional scholars. I would have loved to read a book like this.

I sent a copy of this review to the publisher, hoping that the publisher and the author would consider and think about the information given here. They never bothered to reply. However, I sincerely hope that Taylor will never write - and that Quercus will never publish - a book as bad as this again.

* * *

 

Andrew Taylor,

The Rise and Fall of the Great Empires, 

Quercus, 2008, 256 pages

 

* * *