My one liner: Fratricide, Patricide, Matricide, Infanticide, Blood, Guts, Gore, Pillage, Murder, Incest, Intrigue, Betrayal, Incompetence, Brilliance, Genius, Aggression, Passion, Fervour, Docility, Stupidity, Hubris. In other words the first five hundred years of the Byzantine Empire as described by John Julius Norwich in this classic account.
 
“After over half a century of contact with the Romans, his people had become perhaps one degree less bestial than at their first arrival; but the vast majority still lived and slept in the open, disdaining all agriculture and even cooked foods – though they would often soften raw meat by putting it between their thighs and their horses’ flanks as they rode.  For clothing they favoured tunics made, rather surprisingly, from the skins of fieldmice, crudely stitched together; this they wore continuously, without ever removing them, until they dropped off of their own accord.  And as they had always done, they still practically lived on their horses, eating, trading, holding their councils, even sleeping in the saddle.”
 
The Huns were a savage tribe which smashed their way out of the Central Asian steppes around 376AD.  Attila the Hun, “the scourge of God”, led a series of attacks on the Byzantine Empire and built up a vast dominion stretching from Constantinople to the Balkans in the East to Italy and France in the West. He came within a whisker of invading Rome itself.   
  
The Hun invasion is  just one example of the incursions and travails that beset the Byzantine Empire during the period covered in this book, 300 to 800AD. 
This colourful account by John Julius Norwich tells the story of the early Byzantine Empire, established by Emperor Constantine I (“Constantine the Great”) in 311 AD in the new city of Constantinople on the banks of the River Bosphorus.  The New Rome.
 
Whilst the Pope, and hence the religious centre, of the Roman Empire continued to be seated in Rome, the political centre had now gravitated towards the East.  

It was not a smooth and unambiguous transition, and often there were
Co-Emperors, one for Byzantium and one for the West of the Roman Empire.  
 
However, throughout the period of this volume, there was one inalienable and unargued article of faith for every Byzantine (and from which they drew strength of unity in times of turmoil), namely that the Emperor (or Co-Emperor) was the sole Vice-Gerent of God on earth.  This volume ends with the shattering of that practice in the most remarkable way in the year 800AD.  Pope Leo III produces a document (proved to be fraudulent only several centuries later) entitled the “Donation of Constantine”, pursuant to which Constantine the Great had allegedly, 500 years earlier, “retired” to the “province” of Byzantium, having bestowed on the Pope the right to confer the title of Emperor. 

By this document the Frankish ruler Charles (“Charlemagne”) was crowned
Emperor by Pope Leo and despatched to Byzantium to replace the supposed Empress Irene whose reign over Byzantium had been an economic and political
disaster.

Of course, the transition was helped by another factor: “That the Empress was notorious for having blinded and murdered her own son was, in the minds of both Leo and Charles, immaterial: it was enough that she was a woman.  The female sex was known to be incapable of governing, and by the old Salic tradition was debarred from doing so.”  
  
In between the bookends of Constantine the Great and Charlemagne, we read of a fascinating period of Christian history.  Of Emperors who were disastrous.  Of others who ruled Byzantium with skill, care and competence.  
  
For example Heraclius came to the throne in 610 AD.  He introduced a new structure into the eastern side of Byzantium, organising it along military
lines:
 - The part of Asia Minor (the northeast coastline running from Selifke in the Mediterranean to Rize on the Black Sea) which had recently been recaptured from the Persians was divided into four “Themes”, or regions.  The choice of word was significant, because tema was the Greek word for a division of troops, thus underlining the warlike division of the region. 
- Each tema was put under the governorship of a“strategos”, or military governor.  
 -  A reserve army was maintained by providing potential soldiers with inalienable grants of land, in return for hereditary military service if called up.  
 - The net result was that Heraclius did not have to rely on ad hoc recruiting or on doing deals with dodgy barbarians in order to raise an army.  
  
On the economic front he fixed the parlous fiscal position of the Imperial economy through:
 - Taxation and government borrowing
 - Restitution from supporters of the previous corrupt regime
 - Subsidies from “friends and family” in Africa
 - Most importantly however, he persuaded Patriarch Sergius, the Archbishop of Constantinople, to declare that the coming war would be a religious war.  Hence all of the Church assets and treasure would be at the disposal of the Emperor. 

Leadership 101 for aspiring modern warmongerer.  
  
You will need to read the book to find out what became of Heraclius.  

Every Emperor was confronted by tribes trying to nick territory.  The Gauls and Franks perennially switching their loyalties to and from Rome.  The Lombards (from modern Germany and Austria) settling in Northern Italy. The Slavs trying to take the Balkans. The Goths, the Vandals and Huns having to be bought off or fought off.  
 
But, there are two stand-out foes of Byzantine Christendom over this period.  
 
First, the Persian Empire, whose rulers always seemed to have the knack for knowing when they had the upper hand. As an example, in 359AD Emperor Constantius II receives a letter from the Persian King:
 
“Shapur, King of Kings, brother of the Sun and the Moon, sends salutation...
 
Your own authors are witness that the entire territory within the river Strymon and the borders of Macedon was once held by my forefathers; were I to require you to restore all of this, it would not ill-become me...but because I take delight in moderation I shall be content to receive Mesopotamia and Armenia which were fraudulently  extorted from my grandfather.  I give you warning that if my ambassador returns empty-handed, I shall take the field against you, with all my armies, as soon as the winter is past.”
 
I guess a lawyer would call that a Letter Before Action.

And of course the other formidable challenge to Byzantium was the rise of Islam.  

In 633 AD, shortly after the foundation of the religion, it suddenly “burst out of Arabia.”  First Damascus, then Jerusalem.  Next, the whole of Syria.  Egypt and
Armenia fell within the decade. The whole Persian Empire was subsumed within 20 years.  And then Afghanistan and Punjab within another 10 years. 
To the West, North Africa and Spain. Across the Pyrenees and finally checked
at the banks of the Loire.  
 
The rest, as they say, is history.
 
The various Emperors acceded and reigned using diverse styles of governance and deployed some interesting procedural instruments.  

The Emperor Maurice, though fundamentally a good man, faced financial
pressures as a result of the extravagance and incompetence of his predecessor.  Around 602AD he introduced austerity measures, but went too far, at one point cutting military rations by 25%, refusing to ransom 12,000 captives of the Avars (leading to them being put to death), and decreeing that the army should not return to base for winter but should sit it out in inhospitable territory beyond the Danube.  Eventually he become so unpopular that he took the decision to flee to Persia (with whose king he had previously  concluded a truce), taking his family with him.

His successor Phocas, embarked on a brutal purge of all his enemies. 
 
“Debauched, drunk, and almost pathologically cruel, he loved, we are told, nothing so much as the sight of blood..; it was Phocas who introduced the gallows and the rack, the bindings and mutilation which were to cast a sinister shadow over the centuries to come.”
 
First, Phocas despatched troops to Asia and killed Maurice and family. Then he exterminated his own brother and nephew. Plus a whole bunch of military men.  He even managed to kill Narses, his best general in the East.  Unsurprisingly, the Persians took their chance, invaded, and took
significant chunks of territory, including Mesopotamia, Syria, Armenia,
Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, and Galatia.  
  
Other examples abound. 

Julian the Apostate, who eventually became Emperor in 361 AD, had to bide his time (indeed he didn’t really have imperial designs, and in fact was a sort of travelling scholar, and by all accounts a little bit of a geek).  

His cousin Constantius II preceded him as Emperor.  He had had Julian’s father and stepbrother killed when Julian was a young child.  Constantius made the error of elevating Julian, appointing him as the Caesar of Gaul.  Julian must have had a festering hatred for Constantius II.   He bided his time, and then led an army against Constantius.  
 
This book has some other useful features.  The tables of lineages, emperors and family trees, the maps and illustration all add to understanding.  Moreover there is a tourist guide, providing a list of the Byzantine monuments still surviving in Istanbul today.  
  
I agree with the author in his Introduction that Byzantium is an era of history under-taught in schools, yet it has more than enough material to capture the imagination of a schoolchild.  
  
The narrative of this book is tight, so it leads you swiftly from one reign to another quite seamlessly.  
 
And that perhaps, is a clue to the central message of the book. 

Dynasties come and go.  Some leaders are good people, some are bad, most a bit of both. They are able to wield huge power. And yet they are all merely human beings powerless against the passage of time and events.

The wikipedia link to the book is here.

My one liner: Viewed through the lens of the mutual back-stabbing between Britain and France in the first half of the 20th Century, the origins of the current strife in the Middle East become clearer.  An "infographic review".
 
Take the following quotes referring to a political debate in Britain about her presence in Mesopotamia (now Iraq), and you come to realise how historical cycles repeat themselves:

"However, by now the terms of the oil-sharing arrangement that Britain had reached with France...had become public and were attracting controversy, particularly in the United States which had been excluded from the deal...During the 23 June debate...[Prime Minister] Asquith systematically tore into Churchill's figures to demonstrate that the costs of Britain's presence were still unclear, and questioned the assumption that Britain would ultimately reap a divided from its mandate.  He attacked Lloyd George's root interest in the country, for its oil, as a 'fundamental violation' of the League of Nations covenant signed by Britain."

"At the beginning of July the small British garrison in the town of Rumaythah on the railway 150 miles south of Baghdad was attacked by thousands of well-armed and disciplined insurgents...Led by the nationalists and backed by the Shia's powerful religious leaders, the rebellion quickly spread among the tribes of the fertile Euphrates flood plain...The tribesmen cut the railway in several places, and within days much of the areas between Rumaythah and Diwaniyah...was in revolt."

Author James Barr has forensically analysed government and diplomatic papers up to the immediate post-war period to present a well-narrated account of how the two declining colonial powers Britain and France managed to undermine each other's interest in the region.  

An alternative style adopted for this review. 

I have taken inspiration from the book "Information is Beautiful" by David McCandless (highly recommended) to create a few charts (nowadays known as "infographics", I believe) that show the interplay between the two powers in the region, and the timelines by which some of the modern states were created. 

The charts are my own creation based on my interpretation of the book, and of course do not capture much nuance.  But hopefully they give a flavour of the extensive ground and material covered by the author.  Apologies to the author (and, no doubt, others more knowledgeable than me) for inaccuracies.

Syria. 9 September 1919. David Lloyd-George, British Prime Minister: "We could keep faith both with the French and the Arabs, if we were to clear out of Syria, handing our military posts there to the French, and at the same time, clear out of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo, handing them over to Feisal [for a short period King of independent Greater Syria].  If the French then got into trouble with Feisal it would not be our fault."

"On 27 May [1943], fighting erupted in Homs and Hama, the two main cities between Damascus and Aleppo.  In Hama a dispute between the French and the Syrian gendarmes about who controlled the railway station escalated.  After the Syrians ambushed a French relief column outside the town, capturing artillery and armoured cars, the French retaliated by mortaring, machine-gunning the town.  Eighty people died."

Lebanon. "In June 1941 British and Free French forces invaded Syria and Lebanon to stop the Vichy administration providing Germany with a springboard for an offensive against Suez.  After the Vichy French surrendered a month later the British government entrusted the government of Lebanon and Syria to the Free French.  When that move caused Arab anger British officials decided that the best way to divert attention from Palestine was to help both Syria and Lebanon gain their independence at French expense.  With significant British assistance the Lebanese did so in 1943."

Mesopotamia (Iraq). "Once the British government had decided that control of Northern Iraq mattered more than the question of who was allowed to join the Turkish Petroleum Company, [Chief Executive, John] Cadman went to the United States later in 1922 to hammer out a provisional agreement that offered the Americans participation in the company. That done American criticism magically evaporated, the Mosul dispute was eventually resolved in 1926 and the deal was signed in 1928. By its terms, four companies - Anglo Persian, Royal Dutch Shell, the French state-owned Compagnie Française des Pétroles and the Near East Development Corporation which represented the various US companies' intrests) each had an equal stake of 23.75 per cent in the TPC. 'Mr Five Percent', Calouste Gulbenkian, who had set up the company, retained the remainder."

Palestine (Israel). The Balfour Declaration 1917 (Arthur Balfour, British Foreign Secretary): "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

From the author: "On 10 November [1945], [Georges] Bidault [French Foreign Minister] quietly told David Ben-Gurion [Zionist leader and subsequently first Prime Minister of Israel] that France would support the Zionist cause. Eighteen months earlier Ben-Gurion had  offered up the hope in public that, after the war, the Jews would find that a rejuvenated France would 'have an understanding attitude towards us'. That prayer had now been answered.  It was not long before France's grand policy of covert support for the Zionists would emerge. "

There is no wikipedia page for this book.  The author's homepage is here

My one liner: Arguably, even exceptional people can only ever expect to achieve 55% of what they want in life.  A dip into the 18th century philosophy of Voltaire can help us understand why.

Here’s a basic hypothesis for life outcomes. Bear with me on this, as those of you who know your Voltaire are going to say I’m straying far too far off the reservation…

Imagine that the outcomes that happen to an individual person in life are determined by 80% “world events” which are outside of his control and 20% “specific performance” which is within his control (comments please, on the percentage split).  [as an aside, anyone in finance will recognise the parallels with “market” and “specific” risk – presumably (??) the world in general operates like this, not just stock markets]. 

And let’s say that on average, half of “world events” are “good” ones for a particular individual, and half of them are “bad” ones.  So, your life outcome from “world events” is 40.  And let’s say on individual performance, a person thinks he is a “10-15”, say 15 for the high achievers amongst us.  So, add them up, and even a high achiever only gets to 55, on average.  If events always go his way, he gets to 95, and if events always go against him, he gets to 15.  But his expectation is 55.

Some faiths interpret “world events” in that model above as “Fate”.  The faiths typically differ as to what Fate implies.  The Judeo-Christian / Abrahamic tradition basically says that if you live a virtuous life then divine intervention tilts Fate in your favour. The Buddhist / Hindu tradition says that you can only escape the clutches of Fate through a process of self-realisation; otherwise your Fate is written, and that’s it.

Where on this line does Voltaire site in the tale of Zadig ? Hard to say, but I think he is undecided.  Zadig is frustrated that in his own eyes he is virtuous, wise, and makes good decisions (he probably rates himself as a 20), and yet his outcomes do not always reflect this. 

“Zadig, avec de grandes richesses, et par conséquent avec des amis, ayant de la santé, une figure amiable, un esprit juste et modéré, un cœur sincère et noble, crut qu’il pouvait être heureux. ”

“As Zadig was immensely rich, and had consequently Friends without Number; and as he was a Gentleman of a robust Constitution, and remarkably handsome; as he was endowed with a plentiful Share of ready and inoffensive Wit: And in a Word, as his Heart was perfectly sincere and open, he imagin’d himself, in some Measure, qualified to be perfectly happy.”

Some outcomes for him are simply due to bad luck, and he does try to pick himself up:

“Tout ce que j’ai fait de bien a toujours été pour moi une source de malédictions, et je n’ai été élevé au comble de grandeur que pour tomber dans le plus horrible précipice de l’infortune. ”

“All the Acts of Benevolence which I have shewn, have been the Foundation of my Sorrows, and I have been only rais’d to the highest Spoke of Fortune’s Wheel, for no other purpose than to be tumbled down with the greater Force.”

Others are, sorry Zadig, of your own making, as you do like to chase the girls a bit:

“Qu’est-ce donc que la vie humaine ? O vertu ! à quoi m’avez-vous servi ? Deux femmes m’ont indignement trompé ; la troisième, qui n’est point coupable, et qui est plus belle que les autres, va mourir ! ”

“What is this mortal life ! O Virtue, Virtue, of what Service hast thou been to me ! Two young Ladies, a Mistress and a Wife, have prov’d false to me; a third, who is perfectly innocent, and ten thousand Times handsomer than either of them, has suffer’d Death, ‘tis probable, before this, on my Account !”

So you probably aren’t as close to a 20 as you think you are.

It is not revealing too much to say that in the end Zadig reaches his goal of happiness.  But he has to go through some trials and tribulations to get there.  He kills some Egyptians in Egypt whilst defending a maiden’s honour.  Though his defence is accepted, the law says that he must nevertheless become a slave:

“Les Egyptiens étaient alors justes et humains.  Le peuple conduisit Zadig à la maison de ville. On commença par le faire panser de sa blessure, et ensuite on l’interrogea, lui et son domestique séparément, pour savoir la vérité. On reconnut que Zadig n’était point un assassin : mais il était coupable du sang d’un homme : la loi le condamnait à être esclave.”

“The Egyptians at that Time were just and humane.  The Populace, ‘tis true, hurried Zadig to the Town Gaol; but they took care in the first Place to stop the bleeding of his Wounds, and afterwards examin’d the suppos’d delinquents apart, in order to discover, if possible, the real Truth.  They acquitted Zadig of the Charge of wilful and premeditated Murder; but as he had taken a Subject’s Life away, tho’ in his own Defence, he was sentence’d to be a Slave” as the Law directed.”

He becomes the slave of an Arab merchant Setoc; the merchant realises over time that Zadig has skills way beyond those of an average slave and they become friends.  A taste of Voltaire’s wicked humour, in reference to Zadig’s womanising tendencies:

“Sétoc enchanté fit de son  esclave son ami intime.  Il ne pouvait pas plus se passer de lui qu’avait fait le roi de Babylone ; et Zadig fut heureux que Sétoc n’eût point de femme. ”

“Setoc, transported with his good Success, of a Slave made Zadig his Favourite Companion and Confident; he found him as necessary in the Conduct of his Affairs, as the King of Babylon had before done in the Administration of his Government; and lucky it was for Zadig that Setoc had no Wife.”

Zadig is given back his freedom and continues on his quest to find Queen Astarté, the former queen of Babylon with whom Zadig had fallen in love while he was in the employ of the King.  As a result they had both been forced to flee the Kingdom. 

Zadig’s new found happiness at being freed from slavery does not last long.  He makes his way back to Babylon, where he finds that Astarté has been reinstated as queen and that a competition is underway to find a queen for her. Zadig enters the competition, which takes place between four warriors dressed in full armour, and having anonymous identities.  He wins, but before his identity is revealed his armour is stolen by one of his rivals, and Zadig is therefore eliminated from the competition. 

His final journey (a parallel to the “40 days”) takes him back into the wilderness.  Here he meets hermit who eventually reveals himself to be the Angel Jesrad.  The hermit teaches Zadig that his destiny is beyond his control, and that Evil is a necessary counterweight to Good:

“Les méchants…sont toujours malheureux : ils servent à éprouver un petit nombre de justes répandus sur la terre, et il n’y a point de mal dont il ne naisse un bien. ”

“The Wicked…are always unhappy.  Misfortunes are intended only as a Touch-stone, to try a small number of the Just, who are thinly scattered about this terrestrial Globe: Besides, there is no Evil under the Sun, but some Good proceeds from it.”

As an example, the hermit kills a 14-year-old boy by drowning him, explaining to Zadig that had he not done so, the boy would have killed his aunt, and indeed Zadig himself.  So, Voltaire thinks that Fate can indeed be altered by divine intervention.  The Angel tells Zadig that his destiny lies back in Babylon, and suggests that he go back there. 

Which he does.

And this time he truly finds the “Happiness” that he is looking for (read the book to find out how). 

So who is Zadig ? He is a philosopher, wise man and warrior living in the ancient kingdom of Babylonia.  Voltaire tells his story through Zadig’s reflections on the nature of Mankind:

“Il se figurait alors les homes, tels qu’ils sont en effet, des insectes se dévorant les uns les autres sur un petit atome de boue.”

“He then reflected on the whole Race of Mankind, and look’d upon them, as they are in Fact, a Parcel of Insects or Reptiles, devouring one another on a small atom of clay.”

His journey is one of self-discovery, that starts with the naivety of his own moral standpoint:

“Zadig voulut se consoler, par la philosophie et par l’amitié, des maux que lui avait faits la fortune.”

“As Zadig had met with such a Series of Misfortunes, he was determin’d to ease the Weight of them by the Study of Philosophy, and the Conversation of select Friends.”

There is historical and cultural interest in the book too.  We think today of cities in the Arab world which have become trading hubs where merchants from all over the world congregate.  But it was no different in ancient times too, for example this reference to what is now known as Basra in modern Iraq:

“Il lui paraissait que l’univers était une grande famille qui se rassemblait à Bassora.  Il se trouva à table dès le second jour avec un Egyptien, un Indien gangaride, un habitant du Cathay, un Grec, un Celte, et plusieurs autres étrangers, qui dans leur fréquents voyages vers le golfe Arabique, avaient appris assez arabe pour se faire entendre.”

“It appear’d to him as if the whole Universe was but one large Family, and all happily met together at Balzora.  On the second Day of the Fair, he sat down to Table with an Egyptian, and Indian, that lived on the Banks of the River Ganges, an inhabitant of Cathay, a Grecian, a Celt, and several other Foreigners who by their Frequent Voyages towards the Arabian Gulf, were so far conversant with the Arabic Language, as to be able to discourse freely, and be mutually understood.”

And we get some examples of Voltaire’s deliciously wicked humour:

“Zadig éprouva que le premier mois du mariage…est la lune du miel, et que le second est la lune de l’absinthe.”

“Zadig found, by Experience, that the first thirty Days of Matrimony… is Honey-Moon; but the second is all Wormwood.”

So, does Voltaire truly think that Fate, or “World Events”, as I put it earlier, is the only determinant of our life outcomes ? Well, I am not so sure that he does.  I think he is not sure, and he leaves a few doors open, to suggest that we can tilt outcomes in our favour.  By portraying the story of Zadig as a journey, Voltaire seems to be suggesting that it is Zadig’s learning and understanding of his own capabilities which evolves. 

Taking the analogy at the start of this article a little further, maybe Zadig starts off as 10/20 even though he thinks he is a 20/20.  And perhaps it is his journey and experiences which bring him to being a 15/20.

The English version of this book is a 1749 translation produced for New Bond Street booksellers John Brindley.  I can find no reference to who actually produced the translation.  The book is available for free in French here and in English here via the Project Gutenberg.  The Wikipedia link to the book is in French here and English here.