I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask this question, but it seems like a good place to have this question answered...
I recently finished "A Short History of Byzantium" by John Julius Norwich and greatly enjoyed it. I am interested in reading his larger, three volume work on the same subject, as well as his books on Venice and the Italo-Normans.
I am wondering what Norwich's scholastic reputation is. Are his works respected and reliable? As I said, I greatly enjoyed the book I read, and I attribute that largely to Norwich's writing style, but I want to make sure I am getting good information.
Thanks in advance, anyone who replies!
Edit: spelling error/style
The usual academic consensus is that he's a very good writer, but maybe a bit too credulous and uncritical. While he knows the primary sources, he's not very aware of the work of more recent historians. It's actually a bit difficult to find scholarly opinions, since academic writers tend to ignore him more than anything. But here are some typical reviews:
“Although Norwich provides a lively narrative readers may enjoy, students seeking a reliable introduction to Byzantine history will need to look elsewhere.”
Alan Harvey, review of Byzantium: The Apogee, in The Historian 55, no. 3 (1993), pg. 555
“John Julius Norwich's Byzantium (3 vols.: London, 1988-95) is an uncritical compilation of largely obsolete work (which, however, 'makes no claim to academic scholarship,' I, 28)”
Warren Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society, Stanford University Press, 1997), introduction, pg. xv
"Norwich's narrative is so lively, certainly partly because of his own skill as a writer but also very largely because he relies so much on lively Byzantine stories; and his history is so bad because he is unaware of how those stories operate - he believes them. So Norwich's narrative is, in its way, very Byzantine: it is very readable and not to be trusted."
Roger Stone, "Byzantine Chronicles", in The Medieval Chronicle 6 (2009), pg. 34