"Luttwak's New Book for Byzantium Fans" Topic

Coming to OMM in 2-3 weeks, Edward N. Luttwak's THE GRAND STRATEGY OF THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE. This is a broad, interpretive account of Byzantine strategy, intelligence, and diplomacy over the course of eight centuries. Appendix, notes, biblio, index. 1vol, 512pgs 2009 US, BELKNAP PRESS
NEW-dj $35. USD

Dennis from OMM
onmilitarymatters.com

Sort of a follow-on to The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire, I guess. Eight hundred years--probably from the time of Theodosius to the beginning of the Palaeologan dynasty. I find the later years of the Empire fascinating, but there would be little material for Luttwak to work from, and strategy from roughly 1260 to 1460 was more a matter of responding to what the enemy did than actually shaping events (with the exception of the Sicilian Vespers)
Grelber

I started reading it last night. It's very Luttwak, and I suspect will attract the same range of praise/criticism as his earlier volume on the Roman Empire. Certainly the chapter on Attila and the crisis of the 5th century is long and discursive and at times, at least to this reader, seemed a little beside the point.

But anything that treats the subject seriously is worth reading at least, and Luttwak is also prone to great insight (when he sticks to his sources and their limitations).

I always liked Luttwak. His "Coup d'Etat" was a major inspiration for "Junta".

I also was amused at how poorly he tolerated fools when TV hired him as a talking head during Gulf War I.

I remember readng Luttwak's book on the Roman Empire, years ago, and being impressed. Sadly, I forget what he said…

The principal criticism of the earlier book (I'm relying on memory here – it was published 20 years ago), is that his strategic conception of the Roman empire's defence looked a lot like 1970s NATO strategic concepts for fighting and defeating the Warsaw pact forces in central Europe, and that he extrapolated beyond the point where more cautious scholars of the ancient sources believed it possible to go. He does make the arresting point in the first few pages of the new one that the Byzantines had a more complex and nuanced strategic concept than the Romans, which I would add may simply reflect the greater range and diversity of Byzantine texts and commentaries that have come down to us.

The main thing I recall about his first book was he thought the Romans did better when the first line of defense was the numerous armies of client states and the legions were really a strategic reserve. He maintained that things went downhill when the Romans absorbed the clients and took on frontier defence themselves. At least that's what I remember after many, many years. I worked in the NYU library back in the 70's and all new history books stopped at my desk before getting on the shelves.