0

Reviews

Byzantium

Articles

Rioters: 1381 and 2011

1413

and all that

Journal

of the

University of St Andrews

History Society

Volume 2: Issue 1: June 2013

IN THIS ISSUE

1

1413 And All That

Journal of the University of St Andrews History Society

Volume 2: Issue 1: June 2013

CONTENTS

Foreword 4

Articles

(Mis)Representing Rioters: The Depiction of Participants in the 1381 Popular 5

Revolt and the 2011 London Riots

By Martin Christ

Reviews

Byzantium: The Surprising Life of A Medieval Empire by Judith Herrin 17

Reviewed by Dan Sanders

2

EDITORIAL BOARD

Editors-in- Chief

Michael Cotterill

Alex Hill

S C Scholes

Deputy Editors

Michael Miller Ancient History and Archaeology

Jimmy Boulton Mediaeval History

Emma Thompson Modern History

Deirdre Mitchell Scottish History

Nadia Green Historiography & Contemporary History (Martinmas)

Simon Bartram Historiography & Contemporary History (Candlemas)

Sub Editors

Annelies Van de Ven Ancient History and Archaeology

Claire Mottram Medieval History

Emma Lewsley Medieval History

Amy Carroll Modern History

Eirik Roesvik Modern History

James McDonald Scottish History

Simon Bartram Historiography & Contemporary History (Martinmas)

EDITOR’S PREFACE

elcome to the second volume of History Society’s very own journal, 1413 and all that.

The journal aims to demonstrate the enthusiasm and insights of St Andrews students in

the world of history, and this issue is no exception.

As always, the journal contains a diverse collection of articles, research pieces and reviews.

A number of works this year focus on power, from the authority of emperors and kings, to the

influence of ordinary people. It also highlights the use of history in modern media, and the role of

the past in the present debates on the future of Scotland. History has the ability to be manipulated

and interpreted in a number of ways and the job of a historian is never an easy one. The Journal,

however, shows how rewarding a bit of digging can be and how important it is to pay attention both

to the past and its impact on the history of the present.

We hope that the journal sparks your interest, ignites debate, and fans the flames of

understanding.

Historically,

Michael Cotterill, Alex Hill & S C Scholes

Editors-in-Chief

W

3

(MIS)REPRESENTING RIOTERS: THE DEPICTION OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE 1381

POPULAR REVOLT AND THE 2011 LONDON RIOTS

MARTIN CHRIST

Historians have long pointed to the great number of peasant revolts in late mediaeval Europe;1 however,

they have examined the 1381 revolt more closely than other risings as it has been deemed to be ‘the most serious

threat ever posed to the stability of English government in the course of the Middle Ages.’2 Sparked by the third

poll tax of 1380-81 the rising affected large parts of England finding its climax in London. The rebels and their

leaders formulated a set of demands voiced directly to King Richard II. The novelty of a large-scale popular rising

in England coupled with the rebels’ awareness of the existence of written records was unique to this locale, period

and revolt. Since then, misportrayals of rebels have been used to great effect - most recently after the 2011

London riots. In these riots, no clear aims were formulated and leaders much harder to detect. Investigations and

reports by a number of different parties revealed complex, underlying factors which were often entirely ignored.3

Although the revolts were different in many respects, I contend that each uprising saw those who held the pen use

the power that came with it for their own purposes. In each historical moment, misrepresentations included

omission of important facts, addition of questionable information, or the wrong or oversimplified use of available

reports.

As the first popular rebellion in English history, chroniclers wrote a unanimous condemnation of the

rebels who were for the first time aware of the reports concerning them. Writing on rebellions has had a long

tradition in Europe. Descriptions of rebellions prior to the Middle Ages, for example Plutarch’s description of the

Third Servile War, are surprisingly neutral regarding the rebels.4 Accounts of 1381, however, are uniquely

medieval because chroniclers negatively convey the rebels but, more importantly, all chroniclers were unanimous

in their criticism of the rebels.5 Previous revolts were fought between major political actors, such as barons,

princes and the king, leaving chroniclers divided about whom to side with. In 1381, a large-scale rebellion

consisted of ‘ordinary men’ for the first time.6 The rebels claimed an unprecedented level of agency and all

chroniclers agreed that the rioters were those who threatened safety and stability in the realm. The unique nature

of 1381 as a popular rebellion rather than a battle amongst the landed aristocracy made the chroniclers’

assessment possible. Subsequent rebels were portrayed negatively by commentators again and again. Most

recently in 2011.

Though the two riots had different causes, leaders and effects, a comparison brings insight into the

reporting and recording, past and present. Similar comparisons over long time periods have proven to be

successful previously. Horst Fuhrmann, for example, has skillfully shown that broader trends from the Middle

Ages are still detectable in the present day and there has recently been a resurgence of attempts at explaining

modern phenomena by referring to the more distant past.7 Most frequently, the Jaquerie has been analyzed in

comparison to the uprising of 1381.8 André Réville in one of the first scholarly accounts of the 1381 revolt has

argued that this uprising was not a short revolt by the starving and miserable peasants, like the Jacquerie was, but

rather a complex and multi-facetted popular rising.9 The French pendant of the popular rising of 1381 was, of

course, less than fifty years before. Risings even further apart, temporarily and geographically, have also been

4

contrasted to great effect. The 1525 Peasants’ War in Germany and 1381 have also been juxtaposed and parallels

could convincingly be detected.10 Hardly anyone has compared a modern revolt to the rebellion in 1381, however.

One notable exception is the comparison of the 1981 Brixton Riots and 1381 by Andrew Prescott.11 All these

comparisons yielded interesting and fruitful results because the authors did not over-stretch the extent to which

these events are comparable.

While the main sources for the 1381 revolt are a number of different chronicles, in 2011 media comments

become essential source documents. To briefly foreground both events, in June 1381 Kentish dissidents, following

their leader Wat Tyler, marched on London where they joined forces with a rebel contingent from Essex. On 12

June the renegade Lollard priest John Ball delivered his sermon containing the famous phrase ‘When Adam

delved and Eve spam, who was then the gentleman?’ at Blackheath, outside London, to the rebels. The day after

the Kentish contingent crossed London Bridge whilst the Essex rebels with their leader Jack Straw gathered at

Great Baddow. Supposedly the rebels were met by King Richard II, aged 14 at the time, on 14 June and proceeded

to present their demands. These demands were largely revolving around their status as villains and the wrong-

doing of various officials. The subsequent looting and arson in London mainly targeted holdings and houses of

those whom the rebels considered to be traitors; they did not randomly attack anything that crossed their path. The

peasants then stormed the Tower of London, and killed unpopular government officials. The following day, Wat

Tyler and Richard II met at Smithfield. After presenting the rebel demands and having a brief conversation, Wat

Tyler was killed by the Lord Mayor of London, William Walworth. Subsequently, Richard managed to disperse

most of the other rebels relatively quickly. The rising had also spread to other parts of England, including

Yorkshire, Norfolk and Suffolk. Here, too, the rising was suppressed by the ruling nobles and clerics with superior

forces.

Due to the sheer quantity of sources available for the 1381 rebellion (judicial records, tax records,

chronicles, popular myths and poems, songs) it is necessary to focus on four major chronicles and their respective

portrayal of the rioters. The four chronicles are: the Anonnimale, Froissart, Walsham and Westminster

Chronicles.12 The Anonimalle Chronicle was discovered in St. Mary’s York and is believed to have been written

by someone close to the king, likely an adviser of some kind. It consequently contains a lot of detailed

information and is often regarded as the most reliable of the various chronicles.13 The Froissart Chronicle, on the

other hand, was authored by Jean Froissart. He was a French chronicler who concerned himself with the Hundred

Years’ War and is an invaluable source for this period. Both the Walsham and Westminster chronicles are the

work of monks. The part of the Westminster Chronicle concerning the 1381 popular unrest, although anonymous,

is thought to have been written by Richard of Cirenchester. The Westminster Chronicle by a monk of the local

monastery. It takes little imagination to see that it is unlikely that a Frenchman, a close follower of the King and

two monks were the most objective of observers.

The rising in London in 2011 was initiated by the death of Mark Duggan at the hands of the police on 4

August; however, underlying sociocultural factors fuelled and sustained the rising. The rising sprang from a

peaceful protest march against the lack of investigation into Duggan’s death. People took to the streets on 7

August in Tottenham and the following three days were marked by wide-spread arson and looting in the capital

and other major English cities, including Birmingham, Manchester, Bristol and Liverpool. Thousands of people

5

participated in the riots and the revolt was covered widely by national and international media. The riots resulted

in 3,100 arrests, 5 deaths, 16 serious injuries and damage estimated at £200 Million.14

The events of 2011 also received wide-ranging coverage. With the rise of blogs and internet reporting, it

is again necessary to make a pre-selection of sources. Due to the small time lapse the boundary between primary

and secondary sources is extremely blurry. In this study, major national newspapers and tabloids (The Guardian,

The Times, The Independent, The Sun, The Daily Mail), as well as some local ones (London Evening Standard)

have been taken into account.15 Major news websites, such as the BBC, provide valuable historical context. In

addition, there is an emphasis on political actors and their portrayal of the rioters due to their importance as

decision makers and the availability of their views in the form of speeches. After the riots and during an

emergency session of Parliament, all major political actors delivered speeches which are going to be analyzed. 16

While the make-up of the rioters of 1381 has been studied previously and the shortcomings of mediaeval

chroniclers has been discussed at length by many, an in-depth investigation of how rioters have been historically

perceived by contemporaries is frequently omitted from historical accounts.17 Possibly owing to the close

proximity to the present day, similar things can be said about the 2011 riots. By utilizing textual and visual

sources this essay seeks to explain why it is important to investigate who wrote about the rebels and how.

Although separated by 630 years, the portrayal of rioters, first seen in the chronicles concerning 1381, was

mirrored in many respects by the present day portrayals of rioters in 2011. This was the case in three distinctive,

yet intertwined, ways. Firstly, the misportrayal of rioters due to flawed sources of information. The most striking

example of this in our modern example is the death of Mark Duggan, which sparked the riots in the first place. It

seems likely that the one-sided and premature portrayal of Duggan’s death fuelled the riots. In 1381, the

chroniclers seem to have had no clear idea of how many people were involved in the rising so just guessed a

(wrong) number. A further level of misportrayal is added when one considers depictions of both riots. It seems

that the exaggeration of the situation was perpetuated in both instances.

Secondly, there were instances where it seems likely that misportrayals were not due to a lack of

information but because the evidence did not fit personal or political agendas. In 2011, leaders on all sides of the

party political spectrum used the riots to reinforce their political standpoints. This is most strikingly the case when

considering the supposed involvement of gangs in the riots, which seem to have played no pivotal role. On the

other hand, one has to be careful that an analysis does not accuse political leaders of trying to profit from the riots

when they were just following their genuine convictions. However, the statements made map too neatly onto

political standpoints and differentiating data was ignored too readily for leaders just to follow their ideals. In 1381

accusations of Lollardy leveled at the rioters and supposed treachery on the part of London aldermen contain

fabrications by chroniclers. Lastly, a close reading of the sources is going to reveal a perception of the rebels as

violent, anti-social animals whose only purpose was to satisfy their lust for blood and goods. The multi-facetted

nature of the rebels is ignored almost entirely and the resulting misportrayal leads to stereotyping and ‘Othering’

of those involved. In many cases underlying root causes are ignored and instead a spirit of ‘us’ against ‘them’

evoked.

6

The premature and wrong portrayal of Mark Duggan’s death played an important part in sparking and

fuelling the London 2011 riots. The death of Duggan on 4 August was first reported as the death of a ‘gangster’

who opened fire at police officers. All newspapers which reported on the death stated that Duggan was the first

one to shoot before police were forced to kill him in self-defense, oftentimes repeating what the Independent

Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) stated: ‘We understand the officer was shot first before the male was

shot.’18 Already on 5 August, doubts started to appear as an eye witness claimed that Duggan was shot while lying

on the ground.19 Yet even after the riots had already started, tabloid newspaper The Daily Mail published an

article entitled ‘VIOLENCE, DRUGS, A FATAL STABBING AND A MOST UNLIKELY MARTYR’ on 8

August.20 In it they not only alleged that Duggan was founder of a gang and a ‘crack cocaine dealer’, but also

implied that he was involved in the killing of a Police Constable during the 1985 Broadwater Farm Riots. On 10

August it was confirmed by the IPCC that Duggan did not shoot at the police officers first.21 A day later, the Daily

Mail released an article stating that Duggan had indeed not shot at the police, however, even when reporting about

his funeral he was described as ‘gangster’.22 If we consider the evidence collected by investigations after the riots

it becomes apparent why such skewed information can be extremely dangerous. According to the report of the

British Youth Council, 33.9% of participants cited the negative portrayal of young people in the media as a factor

in their rioting. Reading the Riots, an investigation by The Guardian and the London School of Economics, found

that 72% mentioned the media as an ‘important’ or ‘very important’ cause for their behaviour.23 Even if we follow

the former estimate, the one-dimensional portrayal of young people, such as Duggan, was an important factor

during the riots.

Such scepticism of reporters began with an increase in ‘documentary competence’24 first detectable

during the 1381 rebellion. Clementine Oliver talks of a ‘suspicion of documentary culture first articulated by the

rebels in 1381’ and ‘bouts of paranoia’ in connection with the rebels of 1381.25 The mediaeval rebels, just like

their modern-day equivalents, feared that the scribes and chroniclers would use the relatively new device of

writing to misportray them. One example, where the rising was misportrayed is the number of people involved.

The chroniclers of 1381 seem to have had no idea how many people took part, the Anonimalle Chronicle talks of

‘the commons of Kent, to the number of sixty thousand’, the chronicles of Thomas Walsingham and Jean

Froissart put the number of rebels at twenty thousand and in the Westminster Chronicle the number remains

unspecified as ‘a large multitude’.26 Walsingham also writes that 200.000 people were listening to John Ball

preach at Blackheath.27 Considering that the total population of London, by far the biggest city of the time, was

between 35,000 and 40,000 it seems very unlikely that there were 60,000 rebels and doubtful too that there were

20,000 of them.28 Indeed, one historian has called the numbers ‘mere phantasy’.29 Such misinformed reporting

was not just confined to the numbers involved, but also regarded the participants of the uprising.

The suspicions of peasants regarding scribes and chroniclers can be traced to another area: the absence of

women from their accounts. None of the major chronicles mention the role women played in the rising and instead

focus on male actors, such as John Ball and Wat Tyler. Yet it seems that, according to court records, women did

play an important part in the rising. Johanna Ferrour was the one who dragged Lord Chancellor Simon Sudbury

out of the Tower of London for him to be executed.30 Although they were probably a small minority, women

7

Public Domain

ILLUSTRATION OF JOHN BALL AND WATT TYLER’S REBELS IN JEAN FROISSART’S CHRONICLES

nonetheless seemed to play their part in the rising. The omission of them from the chronicles has long lasting

implications.

We have already seen how suspicions about media and chroniclers have led to increased anxiety,

arguably leading to greater potential for violence. The wrong reporting of facts also means, however, that

subsequent generations receive the wrong impressions. The most famous depictions of the Froissart Chronicle

show repercussion of what the chroniclers described: no women and a large quantity of armed rebels. The rebels

did not have the armour or weapons portrayed in the depictions and it is possible that to portray the great danger

they posed (not least due to their supposed numbers) the illustrator drew them fully armed.31

The wrongly reported death of Mark Duggan also had visual implications, which served to change the

perception of events. In the article accusing Duggan of gang links, he is depicted as showing two fingers forming

a gun symbol. Even in the article printed on 9 August, in which the Daily Mail pointed to the fact that Duggan

was not the first one to shoot, they reproduced the same picture.32 The repercussions of this picture, which

undoubtedly was supposed to support the story that Duggan was a thug, were far reaching. It was reprinted in

other newspapers, including ones in other countries, such as the Daily Telegraph Australia who called Duggan a

‘[g]un-toting drug thug’.33 Later on the picture was replaced by a more neutral one showing Duggan smiling at the

camera.

The misinformed reporting or recording of events has a detrimental effect on discourse culture. Whether

in 2011 or in 1381, the premature and questionable reporting led to the wrong portrayal (both in a literal and

metaphorical sense) of events. This, in turn, led to a skewed perception of events by a wider audience. Although

literacy rates in the late 15th century were still very low, pictures were particularly appealing to the illiterate. The

pictures reproduced on Duggan’s death too gave a wrong message which, now that more evidence is available,

has to be questioned. In this case the repercussions are particularly severe because information, whether wrong or

8

right, spread rapidly around the world. While the examples above point towards a lack of information and

premature reporting there were also cases were reporting of the rebels was deliberately wrong to suit political

agendas.

London aldermen deliberately fabricated evidence to dispose of their political opponents after the uprising

in 1381. Historians thought for a long time that the city was betrayed by a number of aldermen after the second of

two indictments appeared in 1898. It was not until 1940 that B. Wilkinson challenged this assumption and

convincingly argued that the second return was a ‘deliberate editing’.34 Since then historians have agreed that it

seems very likely that Wilkinson was right in his assumptions.35 John of Northampton, mayor of London at the

time, seized the rebellion as an opportunity to discredit his rivals. Although his scheme did not work, and the

accused were acquitted due to the appointment of a different mayor, one can nonetheless see the deliberate misuse

of evidence.

The accusation of Lollardy is another example, where an ‘obvious fabrication’36 was employed to further

the argument and cause of the chroniclers. The Walsingham Chronicle and Chronicle of Henry Knighton, in

particular, attribute a great influence to the Lollard priest John Ball.37 While it seems likely that they expressed the

general sentiment of the time, there were also deliberate misrepresentations in order to further their cause. For

one, John Wyclif was misrepresented as being in favour of the rising, when in actual fact he was very quick to

denounce the rising (not unlike Martin Luther in 1525). His support and influence seems to have been deliberately

misstated to proof the viciousness of his ‘insane opinions’.38 According to Walsingham, Ball was encouraging the

people to ‘commit greater evils’.39 In another monastery chronicle, the Fasciculi Zizianiorum , Ball is supposed to

have confessed to the bishop of London that he had been ‘a disciple of Wycliffe and had learned from the latter

the heresies which he taught […] Balle also declared that there was a certain company of the sect and doctrines of

Wycliffe which conspired like a secret fraternity […] Balle added that if they had not encountered resistance to

their plans, they would have destroyed the entire kingdom within two years.’40 This confession, deemed an

‘obvious fabrication’41 by R.B. Dobson, is important for two reasons.

First, it shows that the chroniclers used their power to reinforce their own ideas of right and wrong. The

supposed admission that the Lollards would have destroyed the kingdom within two years shows a real threat to

the kingdom as a whole. That, in turn, justifies severe punishment of Lollards as a whole group. The authority of

the church, of which the monk chroniclers were part, was challenged by dissenting groups so any way to prove

their doctrine and teachings to be a threat to be kingdom would be happily taken up. Similarly, Thomas

Walsingham was particularly critical of townsmen in St Albans. They were the very same people his monastery

had had arguments with for decades and it seems likely that he used the revolt to strengthen his monasteries’

position.42 Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the portrayal strips the rebels of their agency. John Ball, John

Wycliffe and a grand Lollard scheme are at the center of the rising. It was, it is implied, not some underlying

factors, not the sheer incompetence of the ruling elites, not the changed demographics after the Black Death that

underpinned the uprising, but rather the Lollards whose only aim was to sow destruction. The implication is that

the rebels were not able to perform independent political actions. The chroniclers, thereby, ignored that the arson

was relatively selective and it was only certain officials’ possessions and records which were frequently attacked.

9

The portrayal of rioters as incapable of making informed choices also becomes clear when we consider

the 2011 riots. David Cameron was quick to describe the riots as ‘criminality: pure and simple’43, thereby

dismissing the importance of underlying factors. These root causes were often critical of and thus uncomfortable

for those in power. For instance, later investigations found that police’s ‘stop and search’ techniques primarily

targeted at black youths were a major factor in the disturbances.44 As George Rudé argued with regards to the

Gordon Riots of 1780, it is important for historians and commentators alike to break out of the habit of seeing

rioters as an uniform, mindless ‘mob’.45 In 2011 and 1381 this advice is too often ignored; David Cameron

blamed gangs for the violent outbreaks and his Work and Pensions Secretary, Ian Duncan Smith, argued along the

same lines.46 Later investigations showed, however, that gangs did not play a pivotal part in the riots.47 It seems

therefore that the discourse was dominated by the idea that the rioters were either criminals who took to the streets

due to vicious opportunism, thus ignoring any other factors. Or that they were marshaled and told what to do by

gangs due to their inability to make decisions based on their own judgment. Not dissimilar to 1381, therefore,

agency is either not present or provided by a greater, more dangerous organization.

Parties also exploited the events to improve their standing. Most obviously, this was the case for groups

on the far right. The English Defence League (EDL) and British National Party (BNP) both tried to capitalize on

the wide-spread discontent. Nick Griffin, leader of the BNP, appeared in a number of towns to ‘agitate and play

on people’s fears’.48 Simple problems, the solution to which featured in respective party politics, were used. In the

case of the BNP the blame was given to immigrants and non-British members of the public. Such political

opportunism was not limited to the far right, however. Ian Duncan Smith cited lax immigration policies under

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown as an important reason for the August violence.49

Explanations given by other politicians also heavily featured their respective party programmers. The

Conservative Party blamed absent fathers and a lack of proper school discipline. The Labour Party and Ed

Miliband argued that a moral decline was at the heart of the problem with bankers’ bonuses, the phone hacking

scandal and MP’s expenses scandal at the centre of the issue. While it might be the case that politicians and their

parties genuinely believe that these factors were the causes for the disorder, what makes such explanations

questionable is that they do not take anything into account which does not suit the respective agendas. David

Cameron’s idea for curing the problems that caused the riots largely centred around his idea of a ‘Big Society’ and

austerity measures, part of which are severe cuts to youth programmes, the scrapping of the Education

Maintenance Allowance (EMA) and shutting down of many community centres. He ignored that research has

found precisely these cuts were an important factor in the riots.50 Ed Milliband and his party, too, did not change

any of their opinions when it was revealed that the phone hacking scandal and other ‘moral shortcomings’ played

very little part.51 Instead both parties, regardless of some commentators pointing towards their one-dimensional

explanations52, pursued their policies unchanged; therefore ignoring anything the riots could have taught them.

There has been no official parliamentary enquiry into the riots and the death of Mark Duggan will not be

investigated until at least January 2013. It seems as if much that could have been learned from the riots was

quickly swept under an Olympic shaped carpet.

10

The final part of this essay is going to analyse the language employed by chroniclers and media. Let us

first turn to 1381. The majority of chroniclers wrote about the rebels in an extremely obnoxious manner. The

Westminster Chronicle calls the rebels ‘the maddest dogs of war’ who ‘ran wild over much of the country’.53 This

animalistic portrayal is taken up and developed further by Froissart who writes that the rebels did not know what

the rising was about and just dumbly followed their leaders.54 The Vox Clamantis also classifies the rebels into

different groups of animals. This source was written by John Gower, an English poet of the Middle Ages, who

wrote his account of the popular rising in Latin verse. He talks about the ‘barbarousness of wild beasts’.55

Walsingham also points to animalistic tendencies writing about screams which ‘can only be compared to the

wailings of the inhabitants of hell. […] their throats sounded like he bleating of sheep, or, to be more accurate, the

devilish voices of peacocks.’56

Besides this animal imaginary the chroniclers ‘employ a broad range of strategies designed to discredit

the social standing, judgment, and objectives of the rebels at every level of representation.’57 Some of the scribes

portrayed the rebels as instruments of evil with Walsingham calling them ‘whores of the devil’.58 This sexual

imagery contrasts interestingly with the lack of reporting on the involvement of women. The idea of moral

corruption was also re-emphasized by the supposed connection to the equally devilish Lollards. Walsingham

further describes the rebels as naïve and dumb peasants: ‘some had only sticks, some rusty swords, some only

axes […] arrows, some of which only had a single plum.’59 The chroniclers also write about the ‘social

unworthiness’60 of the rebels. Froissart calls the rebels ‘gluttons’ and Henry Knighton writes about seeing them

lying drunk in the streets.61 When one turns to a closer reading of the precise words employed, the agenda of the

authors becomes still more obvious. Walsingham calls the rebels ‘ribaldi’, ‘ganeones’ and ‘nebulones’.62 The

repercussions of these words map nicely onto the other descriptions of the rebels. A ribald would be seen as

someone without honour, someone who spreads rumours while ganeones (a glutton, or debaucher) cannot restrain

himself from eating thus showing a lack of self-restraint. Most strikingly, however, nebulonis can be translated as

‘a worthless person’ or a ‘sorry wretch’.63 Such ideas of shamefulness can also be traced to the depiction of rioters

in 2011.

The rioters of 2011 were also portrayed as displaying a lack of self-restraint and being ‘worthless’

individuals, even a burden to the nation. Many commentators used extremely derogatory words, such as yobs, to

describe the rioters.64 Much of the rhetoric of politicians and media reported that the riots had been a reaction of

the ‘underclass’. Ian Duncan Smith told his fellow Tories at their party conference that the containment of the

‘underclass’ had failed. He said, further, ‘[a] growing underclass [has] establish[ed] itself, shut away,

dysfunctional and too often violent.’65 Similar to the chroniclers of 1381, they saw the rioters as ‘dysfunctional’

without any self-restraint and instead doing what they please. A journalist of The Telegraph argued along similar

lines with the headline ‘London riots: the underclass lashes out’.66 Furthermore, an element of the rioters as not

worthy of being British was added to the reporting. Some rioters were described as ‘shaming the nation’.67 In

using these words reporters and politicians alike were ignoring the many that certainly did not belong to an

‘underclass’ (whatever that term is supposed to mean in the first place). Rioters included a ‘millionaire’s

daughter’, many people with fixed incomes and in socially respectable positions.68

11

One of the biggest differences between the depiction of rioters in 1381 and 2011 was that in 2011 an

element of race was added to the discussion. Historian David Starkey stated on BBC’s News Night that black

culture was to blame for the riots.69 While it is true that a large proportion of participants were black, it is wrong

(and dangerous) to depict them as the sole source of wrong-doing. In a particularly vicious article which blames

multi-culturalism in The Telegraph a journalist writes that ‘We are seeing a lot of black faces on our screens

tonight; it's a shame that the spotlight can't also fall on those white multiculturalists who made this outrage

possible.’70 It has been pointed out that those affected by the riots shown on television tended to be white whilst

hardly any black victims of the riots were shown on TV.71 Statistics show, however, that more white youths were

involved in the riots than black ones (41% of those who appeared in court were white and 39% black) and that the

rioters were a ‘complex mix of social and racial backgrounds.’72

In a sense many of the chroniclers, although seemingly disgusted by the rioters, drew more balanced

pictures than their modern day counter-parts. In many of their accounts, the picture of a ‘large spread and diverse

make-up’ of rebels is portrayed once one looks beyond the obvious prejudices.73 It took historians some time to

realise that the make-up of the rebels was so diverse. In 1906 for example, Charles Oman still perceived the rebels

as a uniform mob which created general anarchy under John Ball, a ‘wild extremist’, and Wat Tylor, ‘

demagogue’.74 Herbert Eiden was particularly important in giving faces to the many voices of revolt in 1381.75 A

repercussion of race issues, albeit not as vicious as the arguments in 1381, can be found in the way in which the

attack and burning of Flemish houses and residents is described. While other attacks are pre-fixed with words

such as ‘hideous’ (Anonimalle), ‘wicked’ (Westminster) or ‘ungracious’ (Froissart)76 the burning and killing of

the Flemish foreigners was reported comparatively matter-of-fact.

One-dimensional portrayals of the rioters have led to an ‘us’ against ‘them’ mentality. The essentialism of

reducing rioters to a black, poor ‘underclass’ has been contrasted with what British citizens ought to do. The

clean-up operations which followed the riots and brought communities together were seen as an antipode to the

riots. For many commentators this showed what was ‘great’ about ‘Britain’.77 The problem with such portrayals is

that it simplifies the matter too much into a contest of ‘good’ against ‘bad’ thus ignoring any underlying factors

which would be important to address. One newspaper epitomized this depiction by writing: ‘Decent Britons Hit

Back at the Morons’.78 The stigmatization is extremely problematic because it means those involved in the riots

feel further alienated from any legitimate ways of making their voices heard. Surveys have shown that causes of

the riots were much more than ‘criminality: pure and simple’. They range from the behaviour of the media, over

poverty and corporate social responsibility to opportunism and plain boredom.79

The essentialism and simplistic portrayal of rioters has a long tradition and many a commentator has

fallen into the trap of seeing ‘the mob’ as a conglomerate of uniform individuals. In the long history of rebellions

and uprisings in the British Isles it is hard to find a single one where commentators did not display a biased and

simplistic mind. Reporting on the 1981 riots The Daily Mail wrote participants behaved ‘like demons emerging

from the shadows with their arms raised’, underneath the headline ‘[t]hey were like animals’.80 Riots in Belfast in

1886 were described as ‘roughs in 1000s trooping to West’, while a comment on an 1852 riot read ‘men go mad in

herds.’81 The Gordon Riots are another case in point where for generations, the rioters were perceived as a ‘mad

12

mob’.82 This list could be continued almost infinitely. These larger patterns prove that an analysis of the language

employed by commentators is important and indeed that a broader survey of the linguistics of revolt would be

called for.

In 2011 and in 1381 rioters were portrayed in a very simplistic manner. Visually and in written records,

information which was wrong was propagated. While in 1381 the effects of this was a wrong depiction of the

events, in 2011 it seems likely that they played an important part in fuelling the riots in the first place. In the 21st

century this was especially problematic because the wrong information was copied around the globe. It seems

likely that some actors deliberately portrayed events in a certain manner to benefit their own political and personal

agendas. Politicians in 2011 were quick to argue that their opponents’ policies were responsible for what had

happened without waiting for any proof or verification of their claims. These simplistic explanations angered

many who saw their views misrepresented. In 1381 there were clear examples were political actors and

chroniclers tried to influence both their contemporaries and subsequent generations. The language used was often

extremely essentialist, reducing much of what the rebels wanted to pure opportunism. While opportunism played

its part, larger underlying factors were often ignored in order to come to quick conclusions about the rebels and

their aims. Simplistic explanations only go to further alienate those who rioted. If we continue explaining away

complex problems the streak of revolts, rebellions and rioting which has such a regrettably strong tradition in the

United Kingdom will only be increased further. Only if we accept that the rioters often have multi-facetted

reasons for their actions and only if we listen to what they have to say can we hope for a future with fewer

disturbances.

Martin Christ is an MLitt candidate in Reformation Studies at the University of St Andrews. 1 See, for example, Peter Blickle, Unruhen in der städtischen Gesellschaft 1300-1800 (Oldenbourg, 2010), Samuel K.

Cohn Jr., Lust for Liberty: The Politics of Social Revolt in Medieval Europe, 1200-1425 (Harvard, 2008) or Rodney

Hilton, Bond Men Made Free, Medieaval Peasant Movements and the English Rising of 1381 (London, 1973). 2 W. M. Ormrod, ‘The Peasants' Revolt and the Government of England’, Journal of British Studies, Vol. 29, No. 1

(January, 1990), p. 1. The early history of 1381 was championed by G.M. Trevelyan with his England in the Age of

Wycliffe (New York, 1899) and Charles Oman’s The Great Revolt of 1381 (Oxford, 1906). Whilst the former argues

that the influence of Wycliffe was substantial, the latter, largely based on André Réville’s and Ch. Petit-Dutaillis’ Le

Soulevement Travailleurs D’Angleterre (Paris, 1898), traces the rising to economic factors. Both themes were

developed and challenged by subsequent generations of historians. G.R. Owst, for instance, attributes the rising almost

entirely to the Lollards in his Literature and Pulpit in Mediaeval England (Cambridge, 1933). The economic ideas of

Marx and particularly Engels have also been applied to the rising, for instance in: Margaret Schlauch, The Revolt of

1381 in England, Science & Society , Vol. 4, No. 4 (Fall, 1940), pp. 414-432. Added to these interpretations have been

more political ones, such as B. Wilkinson ‘The Peasants' Revolt of 1381’ , Speculum, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Jan., 1940), pp.

12-35. An excellent introduction was produced by Richard Barrie Dobson (The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 (London,

1970), followed by Herbert Eiden’s ‘In der Knechtschaft werdet ihr verharren’ Ursachen und Verlauf des englischen

Bauernaufstandes von 1381 (Trier, 1995). Many historians also focused on particular aspects of the revolt, for instance

in the essays in R.H. Hilton and T.H. Aston (eds.) The English Rising of 1381 (Cambridge, 1984) or Rodney Hilton in

‘Soziale Programme im englischen Aufstand von 1381‘, Historische Zeitschrift. Beihefte, Vol. 4 (1975), pp. 31-46.

There has also been some interest in a comparative approach, for instance between the 1525 German Peasants’ War

(Horst Gerlach, Der Englische Bauernaufstand von 1381 und der deutsche Bauernkrieg: Ein Vergleich (Melsenheim,

1969) or the 1981 Brixton Riots (Andrew Prescott, ‘Writing about Rebellion: Using the Records of the Peasants' Revolt

of 1381’,History Workshop Journal , No. 45 (Spring, 1998), pp. 1-27). Most recently, books, such as Dan Jones’

Summer of Blood The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 (London, 2009) or Alastair Dunn’s The Peasant’s Revolt: England’s

failed Revolution of 1381 (London, 2004) have taken an approach more accessible to a broader public. 3 The reports which were utilized in this study are The Children’s Society, Behind the Riots: Findings of a survey into

Children’s and Adults’ views of the 2011 English Riots, House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, Policing Large

Scale Disorder: Lessons from the disturbances of August 2011 Sixteenth Report of Session 2010-2012, The

Metropolitan Police Service’s Report, and the Riots Communities and Victims Panel, After the Riots, The final report

13

of the Riots Communities and Victims Panel. The conference proceedings of a meeting of members of the public,

academics and journalists held in London was also utilized: Leah Basel, Citizen Journalism Educational Trust and the-

Latest.com, Media and The Riots, A Call for Action, Conference Report 2012 (London, 2012). In addition all major

national British newspapers and tabloids (The Guardian, The Times, The Independent, The Sun, The Daily Mail, The

Daily Express) and online media outlets (BBC, The-Latest.com, New Economics Foundation) were considered. 4 Plutarch of Chaeronea, Rex Warner (transl.), Life of Crassus, http://www.livius.org/so-

st/spartacus/spartacus_t01.html. 5 Dobson, Peasants’ War, p. 3. 6 Dunn, Great Rising, p. 152. 7 Horst Fuhrmann, Überall ist Mittelalter (München 1996). Brad Gregory, for example, tried to proof the long lasting

impact of the Reformation in his The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society

(Harvard, 2012). 8 For example, Raymond Cazelles, ‘The Jacquerie’, in Hilton, Aston (eds.), Rising, pp. 74-84. 9 Réville and Petit-Dutaillis, Travailleurs D’Angleterre, p. 1. In the French original : ‘La revolte 1381 n’a pas été,

comme la Jacquerie francaise de 1358, un bref soulevement de paysans affamés et miserable rendux furieux par les

ravages de la classe guerriére’ 10 Gerlach, Der Englische Bauernaufstand. 11 Andrew Prescott, ‘Writing about Rebellion’, History Workshop Journal. 12 All chronicles are translated in Dobson, Peasants’ War. Unless original texts are analysed, the translations come from

this book. 13 See, for example, A. F. Pollard, ‘The Authorship and Value of the ‘Anonimalle’ Chronicle’, English Historical

Review (1938) LIII (CCXII), pp. 577-605. 14 The Guardian, Reading the Riots, Investigating England’s Summer of Disorder,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/series/reading-the-riots. 15 Access to these newspapers was gained through the online database Nexus UK. All newspaper articles are to be

found there, unless otherwise stated. They were all accessed between 07-08-2012 and 30-09-2012. 16 These speeches were available either on Nexus UK or in transcripts on the BBC website. 17 Dobson, Peasants’ Revolt, p.3. 18 The Telegraph, ‘Man killed in shooting incident involving police officer’, 4 August 2011. 19 Benedict Moore-Bridger, London Evening Standard, ‘Father dies and policeman hurt in 'terrifying' shoot-out’, 5

August 2011. 20 Paul Bracchi, The Daily Mail, ‘VIOLENCE, DRUGS, A FATAL STABBING AND A MOST UNLIKELY

MARTYR’, 8 August 2011. 21 London Evening Standard, ‘'No evidence' that Mark Duggan shot at police, says IPCC’, 10 August 2010. 22 David Wilkes, Mail Online, ‘Mourners in Bling and Farewell Salutes as Man whose shooting sparked riots is buried’,

9 September 2011. 23 British Youth Council, Our Streets The view of young people and young leaders on the riots in England in August

2011 and The Guardian, Reading the Riots. 24 Steven Justice, Writing and Rebellion: England in 1381 (Berkeley, 1996), p. 36. 25 Clementine Oliver, Parliament and Political Pamphleteering in Fourteenth-Century England (York, 2010), p. 119. 26 Dobson, Peasants’ Revolt, p. 155, p. 170, p. 188 and p. 199. 27 Ibid., p. 374. 28 Hilton, Bond Men, p. 186. 29 Eiden, Knechtschaft, p. 426, the Gernan original reads ‘bloße Phantasie’. 30 Melissa Hogenboom, BBC UK, Peasants‘ Revolt: The Time When Women Took up Arms,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18373149. 31 Interestingly Thomas Walsingham specifically mentions how badly the rebels are armed: ‘some had only sticks, some

rusty swords, some only axes […] arrows, some of which only had a single plum’. Thomas Walsingham, Historia

Anglicana, 1, Henry Thomas Riley (ed.) (London 1863), translated by Dobson Peasants’ Revolt, p. 454. 32 Paul Bracchi, The Daily Mail, ‘VIOLENCE, DRUGS, A FATAL STABBING’.

33 The Daily Telegraph, ‘Gun-toting drug thug Mark Duggan an unlikely martyr’, 10 August, 2011. 34 The Peasants' Revolt of 1381, B. Wilkinson, Speculum, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Jan., 1940), pp. 12-35, p. 13. 35 Dobson, Peasants’ Revolt, p. 212. 36 Ibid., p. 373. 37 Ibid.. 38 Ibid., p. 374. 39 Ibid. 40 Dobson, Peasants’ Revolt, p. 378. 41 Ibid., p. 373. 42 Dunn, Great Rising, pp. 58-59. 43 The Guardian, ‘David Cameron on the riots: This is criminality pure and simple’, 9 August 2011.

14

44 Paul Lewis, Tim Newburn, Matthew Taylor and James Ball, The Guardian, ‘Rioters say anger with police fuelled

summer unrest’, Monday 5 December 2011. 45 George Rudé ‘The Gordon Riots: A study of the rioters and their Victims’, Transactions of the Royal Historical

Society, 5th ser., 6, 1956, pp. 93-114. 46 The Guardian, ‘England riots: Cameron and Miliband speeches and reaction’, Monday 15 August 2011and The

Telegraph, ‘Conservative Party Conference 2011: Gang members are like child soldiers, says Iain Duncan Smith’, 3

October 2011. 47 The Guardian, ‘UK riots analysis reveals gangs did not play pivotal role’, 24 October 2011. 48 The Independent, ‘David Lammy (MP): Prejudices of the few eclipsed by civic pride’, 14 August 2011. 49 The Telegraph, ‘Conservative Party Conference 2011: Gang members are like child soldiers, says Iain Duncan

Smith’, 3 October 2011. 50 Gareth Morrell, Sara Scott, Di McNeish, Stephen Webster, National Centre for Social Research, The August Riots in

England, Understanding the Involvement of young People, prepared for the Cabinet Office (October 2011), pp. 35-36. 51 7.9% (the smallest percentage of all reasons) of the rioters cited phone hacking as a cause for their behaviour. British

Youth Council, Our Streets The view of young people and young leaders on the riots in England in August 2011. 52 Faiza Shaheen, New Economics Foundation, Poverty ⇆ culture and explaining the riots, 24 August 2011. 53 L.C. Hector and Barbara F. Harvey (eds.), The Westminster Chronicle 1381-1394, (Oxford, 1992), p. 2. 54 Jean Froissart, G. Raynaud and S Luce (eds.), Chroniques de J. Froissart, (Paris, 1897), p. 98. 55 E. W. Stockton, The Major Latin Works of John Gower (Washington, 1962), p 49. 56 Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, translated by Dobson Peasants’ Revolt, p. 173. 57 Paul Strohm, Hochon’s Arrow: The Social Imagination of Fourteeneth-Century Texts (Princeton, 1992), p. 34. 58 Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, 1, pp. 459-460. 59 Ibid., p. 454. 60 Prescott, ‘Writing about Rebellion’, p. 4. 61 Froissart, Chroniques, 10, pp. 98 and 111-2 and Henry Knighton, G.H. Martin (ed.), Knighton’s Chronicle 1337-1396

(Oxford, 1995), pp. 218-219. 62 Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, 1, pp. 456-67, in Dobson, Peasants’ Revolt, pp. 168-181. 63 Translations are taken from the P.G.W. Clare, Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford, 1982) and Carlton Lewis and

Charles Short, A Dictionary Founded on Andrews’ Edition of Freund’s Latin Dictionary Revised, Enlarged, and In

Great Part Rewritten (Oxford, 1933). 64 The Sun, ‘600 RIOT YOBS LEFT DNA ON WINDOWS; EXCLUSIVE ANARCHY IN THE UK CLAMPDOWN

ON THUGS’, 1 September 2011. 65 The Telegraph, 3 October 2011, Conservative Party Conference 2011: Gang members are like child soldiers, says Iain

Duncan Smith. 66 Mary Ridell, The Telegraph, ‘London riots: the underclass lashes out London's rioters are the products of a

crumbling nation, and an indifferent political class that has turned its back on them’, 8 August 2011. 67 Trevor Kavanagh, The Sun, ‘Two Views of riots that Shame UK’, 12 August. 68 BBC UK, ‘London riots: Millionaire’s daughter Laura Johnson jailed’, 25 May 2012. 69 The Independent, ‘David Lammy (MP): Prejudices of the few eclipsed by civic pride’, 14 August 2011. 70 Damian Thompson, The Telegraph, ‘London riots: This is what happens when multiculturalists turn a blind eye to

gang culture’, 8 August 2011. 71 Leah Basel, Media and The Riots, p. 13. 72 Ministry of Justice, Statistical Bulletin on the public disorder of 6th-9th August 2011 and Paul Lewis and James

Harkin‚The Guardian, ‘Who are the rioters? Young men from poor areas ... but that's not the full story’, 10 August

2011. 73 Eiden, Knechtschaft, p. 426. The German original reads: ‘Jenseits von Vorurteilen und Verleumdungen vermitteln die

Chronisten das Bild einer breit gefächerten und vielfältigen Schichtung unter den Rebellen‘. 74 Oman, Great Revolt, pp. 70-79. 75 Eiden, Knechtschaft. 76 Dobson, Peasants’ Revolt, p. p. 162, p. 201, p. 192, p. 77 Leah Basel, Media and The Riots. 78 Daily Express, ‘Decent Britons Hit Back at the Morons’, 12 August 2011. 79 The Children’s Society, Behind the Riots: Findings of a survey into children’s and adults’ views of the 2011 English

Riots. 80 Prescott, ‘Writing Abou Rebellion’, p. 2. 81 Martin Kettle and Lucy Hodges Uprising! The Police, the People and the Riots in Britain’s Cities (Headington 1984),

pp. 20-23. 82 Rudé, ‘The Gordon Riots’, pp. 93-106.

15

BOOK REVIEW

BYZANTIUM: THE SURPRISING LIFE OF A MEDIEVAL EMPIRE

BY JUDITH HERRIN

DAN SANDERS

In her new book (published in 2007, by Princeton University Press), Judith Herrin sets out to write a new

general history of Byzantium meant primarily for lay people, rather than specialist scholars. In the preface, she

explains that her inspiration for writing was inspired by a visit she had from two workmen who came to her office

one day and asked her pointedly: “what, exactly, is Byzantium?” This encounter prompted her to write a book that

was accessible to all readers, in an attempt to dispel the confusion many people have about Byzantium. Herrin

attempts to dispel the misapprehensions that Byzantium was a monolithic, dilapidated empire, characterised by

lavish imperial lifestyles, extreme poverty amongst the non-elites and, factional religious conflict. Herrin's book

addresses these and other myths by placing Byzantine history firmly within the contextual framework of the 'long

Mediterranean millennium' currently favoured by scholars such as Averil Cameron and Peter Brown.

The writing is fluid and highly readable; the book assumes no previous knowledge of late antique Rome

and the Byzantine Empire. The work is succinct, concise, accurate, and often entertaining. Rather than being

divided chronologically, the book is divided into four thematic sections. Each section presents various aspects of

Byzantine history, addressing the social, political, legal, cultural, literary, religious, and military aspects of each

theme. In section I, 'The Foundation of Byzantium,' Herrin gives an informative survey of the beginnings of the

Byzantine state and its continuity with the Roman Empire after the reign of Constantine I and the foundation of

Constantinople in the year 330 CE. Byzantium's continuity with Rome is further stressed by Herrin through

discussions of the continuation of Roman law, the Senate, and the continuation of Panem et Circenses within the

city. She also highlights what made Byzantium unique from classical Rome, in particular the Greek Orthodox

Church, and the construction of the Church of Holy Wisdom (Hagia Sofia).

In Section II, 'The Transition from Ancient to Medieval,' Herrin presents the crux of her argument. This

argument is presented in two parts: that the continuity with Rome was a spring board from which the Byzantines

created their own unique Imperial system, and, secondly, that this evolutionary quality made Byzantium so

resilient a mediaeval state. She further attempts in Section II to demonstrate Byzantium as the 'bulwark against

Islam'. She argues that as Byzantium evolved and developed a distinct identity, it increasingly embraced its

Orthodox Christian worldview. This intimate relationship between Imperial stability and Orthodox Christianity,

she argues, ably enabled Byzantium to protect Europe from crumbling under the early Muslim Arab invasions of

678 and 717, and that it was the Byzantines themselves that preserved, and enabled, the modern Europe we know

today. As she writes, '...without Byzantium, Europe as we know it is inconceivable' (87). She writes about both

icons and iconoclasm, as well as the Christianising mission Byzantium undertook to the 'barbarians' both in their

midst and at their borders, especially in regards to Saints Cyrill and Methodios. She also discusses the articulate

and literate nature of society within Byzantium, and the availability of books and learning throughout the Empire.

16

In Section III, 'Byzantium Becomes a Medieval State', Herrin focuses on features of the Byzantine State

that show development towards a medieval state, where there is clear divergence from the continuity with Rome

that was a hallmark of its earlier years. She discusses Byzantium's development through discussions of the

technological advancement of Greek Fire, through the mysterious traditions of eunuchs and court ceremonial, and

the movement away from Rome's traditional method of electing an Emperor through election towards a system of

hereditary succession. Herrin also describes Byzantium's successes in trade, diplomacy and military endeavours.

She uses personages such as Anna Komnene and Basil II 'The Bulgar Slayer' to describe the military, economic

and diplomatic relations Byzantium had with other states, in addition to the cosmopolitan nature of Byzantine

society.

In the final section, which Herrin has titled as 'Varieties of Byzantium' she doesn't emphasise any sort of

decline or eventual fall, which explains why the heading is not 'Decline and Eventual Fall' or something similar.

Instead, she focuses on the rich varieties of Byzantine life in the later period of its existence, until the fall of

Constantinople in 1453. She addresses the Byzantine role in the Crusades, the eventual capture and exile of the

Byzantine Emperors from Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade, and the various Empires in Exile that were

set up in various places in the Byzantine hinterland, such as at Nicaea, Trebizond, Thessalonike and others. She

mentions the various social, political, and religious divides that mark this period, both for good and ill. She

examines the preferences of the late Byzantines, especially those of the Palaiologos dynasty, for rule by Muslim

Turks, rather than fellow Christians from the west.

This book ably provides a lucid, legible survey of Byzantine history within the context of the larger

historical backdrop in its time period. It provides a very good jumping off point for further study (made even

easier by the extensive section-specific bibliography provided at the back) for lay people, students, and early

career scholars, who may be just embarking on the study of Byzantium and the east in late antiquity.

The book does have some shortcomings as well, however. Many of the book’s weaknesses result from alack of

detail and nuance given the complexity of Byzantine history, though this is understandable given its general scope

and purpose. Herrin presents, for example, that it was the Christian character of Byzantium that saved it from

being conquered by the Arabs, which in turn saved the rest of Europe from being similarly conquered. This

simplistic hypothesis is more in line with scholarship of the previous generation, such as that of Glanville

Downey. Herrin presents Byzantium's religious character in monochrome, and gives little or no attention to

religious multiplicity in Byzantium. When Herrin does go into detail about Church squabbles, it is mostly with

respect to East-West relations, which could just as easily be regarded as political, rather than religious, questions.

While the book's shortcomings are excusable given the intended audience, its lack of subtlety is nonetheless

acutely felt by any reader with anything more than a cursory understanding of the subject matter.

Overall, this book does well in the goal it set out to accomplish; that is, it is a very well-written

generalised historical survey of Byzantium. I would recommend this book as an introductory survey or text for

those uninitiated in the study of Byzantine history. The book cannot be recommended for advanced students and

scholars of the period due to its superficial and broad approach to the subject matter. The extensive bibliography,

however, would surely be of use to scholars at all levels.

Dan Sanders is an MLitt candidate in Medieval History at University of St Andrews

17

THE UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS HISTORY SOCIETY

This Journal has been produced by the University of St Andrews History Society. In Addition to

publishing the journal, the Society also exists to enhance the academic and social lives of history

students and others with an interest in the past. Throughout the year we hold a number of events

including trips (castles, ghost tours and look out for further adventures), talks, pub crawls, quizzes

and the annual Garden Party during Freshers and the Interdepartmental Quiz at the end of each year.

If you want to find out more and get involved e-mail us: historysoc@st-andrews.ac.uk

ABOUT THE JOURNAL

©2013 University of St Andrews History Society, all rights reserved.

Cover image courtesy of Abigail Steed.

The Journal of the University of St Andrews History Society is published by the University of St Andrews History

Society.

The University of St Andrews History Society is affiliated to the University of St Andrews Students’ Association, a

registered charity (No. SC019883).