Byzantium: The Lost Empire (1997– ) User Reviews

Pretty good documentary, but not great

[Red-125 · 7/10 · 16 June 2020]

Byzantium: The Lost Empire (1997) is a four-part British documentary directed by Ron Johnston. John Romer is the host, and he narrates the series.

Romer has done many documentaries about the region, especially about Egypt. He approaches the subject of this film--the Byzantine Empire--as if it were a long lost civilization like the Etruscans. For me, this didn't work. We have an enormous amount of information about the Byzantine Empire.

The Byzantine Empire lasted over 1,000 years, and didn't end until the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Remains of the Byzantine Empire are in Turkey, Ravenna, Venice, and many other sites. (Contantinople, the capitol of Byzantium, is now Istanbul, Turkey. Tourists visit many of the buildings constructed by the Byzantines.)

To Romer's credit, he shows us many sites that are outside the tourist route. Often, he's the only person there. (It's hard to tell if nobody visits these sites, or if the public is kept away while he's filming.)

These four 52-minute documentaries are worth viewing, if you can get past Romer's "now it can be told" narrative. Also, I would suggest first checking out the Byzantine Empire on Google, unless you know all about it already. Most of the facts are there in the series, but there's no real overview to orient you. The historical material is there, but it's mingled in with everything else.

The good news is that Romer shows us great Byzantine artwork, so the series is esthetically pleasing. It's pop archeology, but pop archeology has its own rewards.

The series has a very high IMDb rating of 7.9. I didn't think it was that good. I rated it 7.

For Byzantine (Eastern Roman Empire) Geeks!

[chconnol · 22 June 2004]

This astonishing program is basically for geeks/lovers of the subject of the Eastern Roman Empire aka the Byzantine Empire. If you are just coming into this subject, a lot of what is presented will be somewhat lost on you. Mr. Romer does not elaborate on a lot of things. He tells the story of Byzantium in a fragmented way piecing bits of stories with architectural analysis and such. For example, he doesn't dwell very long or in much detail on the pivotal sack of Constantinople by the Venetians (and others) in the so called "Fourth Crusade" in 1204. The events leading up to this tragic event are long and he doesn't delve into the whys-and-wherefores so the viewer may be caught dumbstruck as to why this occurred.

What Mr. Romer DOES do well is imbue this documentary with his own sense of passion for the Empire and what it's loss meant to historians. You can tell by the way he describes the Golden Gate and the Emperor's palace that he truly loves the subject. His hand movements alone convey such a passion for the subject that he actually becomes part of the story. And he's got a great, soothing speaking voice.

If you want to know more about Byzantium, read John Julius Norwich's trilogy on the subject or the condensed version of the subject called "A Short History of Byzantium." When you watch this documentary after reading them, it will open your eyes and your senses to a whole new seemingly undiscovered world!

Spellbinding documentary

[giomanombre · 10/10 · 25 April 2012]

The musical scores used in the background along with some of the archaeological sites creates a sort of magic that keeps me coming back to look at this documentary over and over again. The passion and diction of John Romer inspires the imagination and you really do get unique insights as your journey, with John Romer, through the sites.

A definite must-see if you ever have listed Istanbul, Turkey, on your bucket list of cities to see because I don't think you'll capture the depth of the sites as it's portrayed in the movie. A tourist guide wouldn't go into that much detail.

What would be an interesting trip would be go to Venice, Italy to see the Byzantine treasures, visit Rome and then go to Istanbul, Turkey or include these sites in an eastern Mediterranian tour after being primed by this documentary.

Even if you don't end up travelling, you won't see that part of the world the same way.

Excellent

[markd047 · 10/10 · 2 December 2004]

If you want an excellent survey of Byzantine history done in colorful fashion, this is for you. This documentary would also be excellent for educators, who are teaching about Roman, or medieval history. This documentary is divided into three portions, first dealing with the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the rise of Christianity and the beginning of the Byzantine Empire. The second video deals with Byzantine diplomacy and the iconoclastic controversy. The third and final video explains the decline and fall of Byzantium. The series is shot in several countries, and beautifully integrates Byzantine history into the realities of the modern world, showing the place of this civilization as part of human civilization in general. Do, take the time to watch.

The Christian Empire

[deanofrpps · 10/10 · 27 April 2006]

Though not a Greek I have had a lifelong interest in the Eastern Empire. Its fall in 1453 was the Greatest loss to Christianity in its entire history. Yet while the Easter Empire is not a topic much discussed in American intellectual circles, the US did not merely mimic Golden Byzantiums public architecture, the US is much absorbed in the fated Byzantine historical cycle and now has faced many of the crises involving certain people of a middle eastern extraction about whom it is said that there is a slight tendency for excessive exuberance on religious matters which humbled Great Byzantium. I wonder if the loss of the ability to speak plainly was the first sign post on the road to disaster.

John Romer is to be credited not only for his excellent production but also for his joyful enthusiasm for the subject which is most refreshing.

Not recommended for Americans who like political correctness.

A Rick Steves-Like Convoluted Exploration of Byzantium without Additional Scholarship and Lacks a Clear Focus -- Rather Frustrating

[classicalsteve · 5/10 · 22 June 2009]

The lone commentator journeying around ancient cities begins to wear thin when you realize he or she does not bring in additional scholarship. In other words, all the perspective is from one angle similar to a Rick Steves exploration of a European tourist attraction. Despite an incredible subject, I felt that the reliance solely on John Romer's perspective and narration kept the documentary one dimensional which was frustrating if not rather boring. At several moments, my interest began to wane. The Gonzo-like journalism in which the viewer is not only supposed to be enthralled with the ancient sites but enthralled with John Romer's own fascination diminished the import of the subjects being discussed. Somehow, the narrator also playing sole commentator makes for a rather distracting experience. I prefer documentaries of this type in which the narrator and the commentator(s) are separate.

Aside from the Gonzo format, the other major problem is that the documentary lacks a clear thesis. What was Romer's goal aside from showing us interesting ruins? The documentary is mainly an exploration of ancient sites and a few artifacts with Romer standing in front of almost every ancient building. Romer then presents some history, but almost off-handedly. He would walk around a site and tell some stories about what happened there, but I wanted to hear the larger story, particularly about the reign of Emperor Constantine. As the documentary unfolds, I realized Romer never used to stills and did a poor job of explaining the chronology of events. Another frustration was Romer would bounce from city-to-city but he was not always clear as to where he was exploring. At one point he jumped from Istanbul (aka Constantinople) to Ravenna, Italy and back without clarifying that we had returned to Istanbul.

A far superior documentary on a similar subject is Secrets of the Dark Ages. The format is somewhat similar: a journalist-scholar goes on a quest of exploration to uncover the many mysteries of the Barbarians. However, in Dark Ages, the goal is very clear: to debunk previous prejudices about the so-called Barbarians. The host meets a plethora of scholars and experts that tell him (and us) about many of the unknown aspects of Barbarian culture which fit into his larger purpose. I would have loved to hear the perspective of local scholar-historians in Istanbul explain the historical implications of the Byzantine Empire but Romer decided to do it all himself. With the numerous scholars who have spent entire lifetimes studying this history, Romer really does not have much of an excuse for not using other scholars. If there was a larger point to the documentary Byzantium, I missed it, and maybe that's the other big problem.

Disappointing.

[donahue-1 · 5/10 · 25 October 2007]

While well done - this is more of a tourist's guide to ancient Byzantine sites than a recreation and chronology of the Byzantine Empire. It was difficult for me to get into the mood of the period while being distracted by 20th Century pedestrian traffic, cars and trains - - complicated by the omnipresence of Mr. Romer. By way of comparison - is the thoroughly enjoyable and excellent Discovery Channel production of Genghis Khan - Rise of the Conqueror - - which employed real life actors, period costumes and reenactments to bring Genghis Khan and the rise of the Mongol Empire to life. In stark contract is John Romer's hop-scotching around archaeological sites - - without presenting an in-depth and consistent chronology of the beginnings and political intrigues of the Byzantine Empire. Having said this - this production is worth viewing as long as one is aware of its limitations.

Romanticist Hogwash

[m-ozfirat · 5/10 · 18 April 2015]

First of all I am not against John Romer he has done some very good documentaries in his approachable style to the lay viewer but in this documentary series only on this ignored era he simply mixes his emotions over the events rather then giving us the rational historicity of Byzantium making this documentary in my view soft Propaganda and the long history of a complicated empire done to much in a simple overview.

He starts of why Byzantium became Constantinople in 5 minutes as well as in one episode eulogising the late Roman Emperors Constantine the Great and Justinian without going in to explanation the deeper political paradigm of their complicated and separate times. To prove my point he says how wonderful Justinian and Theodora were whilst ignoring the historical events of the Nika riots, the unpopular taxes and his general unpopularity nor going in to Theodora's origins as a prostitute or her ruthless encouragement in putting down the Nika riots.

Another rigid approach he has is explaining the culture of Byzantium just through iconoclasm and the conversion of Russia and not going in to further divisions of the eastern Churches in Byzantium and its separation from Rome nor its art and architecture only mentioning Hagia Sophia and wrapping it in sheer elaboration or the evolution of its own identity with this split. Further he attributes the end of Byzantium to the Venetians and the Ottoman conquest with out explaining to much why the Empire was reduced and fell over time which also arose out of internal political rivalries and civil wars the Ottoman conquest was just by sheer fate sometime coming though he is fair to the Ottoman conquest of Byzantium. To him 1453 is the end well no Russia becomes the imperial successor to Byzantium it changes its geography just as its Roman predecessor and a separate episode of the impact it had in making of Tsarist Russia until the 20 century would of also explained its legacy. In short elaborate and shallow not formal and objective if you want to understand this period I would recommend the BBC documentary done at the same time I Caesar.