The Emperor Constantine (Phoenix Giants) by Michael Grant

The Emperor Constantine (Phoenix Giants) Reviews

• 
  Erik Graff

  This is one of Michael Grant's better books. One of his poorer books is another biography, that of Herod the Great. The reason for the difference may be that while there are relatively few sources for Herod, there are relatively many for Constantine, allowing Grant a broader canvas and more materials to reconstruct the character of the man and his times.
  
  There is also some humor--a major virtue in an historian--in this book, more than I've been accustomed to from Grant's popular histories. Of course, most of it is dark and ironical.
  
  The greatest impediment to my enjoyment of this biography is the great amount of space Grant devotes to Constantine's supposed architectural accomplishments. One who has visited the sites mentioned would get more out of it, but for readers like myself less travelled the lack of any photographs or diagrams is sorely felt.
  
  As re Constantine and Christianity, Grant comes down firmly on the side of those who believe the emperor's conversion sincere and date it to long before his death. Constantine's god, however, is only barely recognizable as Christian in today's terms.
• 
  Thomas Orsini

  One of the better biographies I’ve read
• 
  Michael

  Not an easy book (for me) to read and even a harder one to write. Certainly it has been mentioned that much of what was written about Constatine falls into two groups: those who extolled what he did (largely Christians), and those who despised him (largely pagans). With difficulty, Michael Grant makes a sincere effort to sort these extremes out and prints a believeable picture of the man.
• 
  Rebecca

  There is no reason for it to take me so long to read a book that only had 225 pages of actual text, but it was just...so....bad.
  
  I don't know why that was. Grant is know as a good writer and an excellent historian, and he certainly had an interesting subject, but I guess everyone's going to be off their game at some time or another. I struggled to even finish it. For the first hundred pages, every ten pages I kept thinking I was going to give up and put it down, because the writing was choppy and difficult, but I told myself I wasn't going to be defeated by a measly 200 page book. As I went along I got more used to the writing style and more interested in the information, so I made it through, but it was not a pleasant experience. Definitely not going to repeat.
• 
  David Elkin

  Just started Aug 30. Grant's style is very readable and this is basically a book that covers not only the man but deals well with Church History in the 300's. Grant states in the beginning that original sources are either all positive (some even overt flattery) by Christian authors or down right condemning (Pagan authors). I have enjoyed Grant's books over the years. Good for the casual fan.
  
  The book is more "general" and an overview that I thought it would be. It certainly is an introduction to the man and not as in depth as I had hoped for.
• 
  D.K. Brantley

  As the two stars indicate, "it was okay."
• 
  Mark Mellon

  While other emperors and generals in antiquity were styled as “Great” or Magnus in their time (Caesar’s rival Pompey being the best example), it’s usually only Constantine who’s remembered in modern history as having this title. Indeed, it’s rare to see his name used without the accompanying honorific. This can largely be attributed to Constantine’s role as the first Christian emperor, a man who played a key, if not crucial, role in the advancement and eventual triumph of this faith as the sole recognized religion in Europe and other parts of the world for centuries to come. Largely due to this achievement, the life of Constantine has been obscured by hagiography, tendentious, outright propaganda that see the guiding hand of the Lord behind every action or statement Constantine ever made. All of this raises questions. Can we ever really know what sort of person Constantine was, given the huge temporal gap between when he lived and the present day and the obvious unreliability of many contemporary historical sources? Can we ever confidently conclude that Constantine was indeed a “great” person?
  
  The author, Michael Grant, is a former Cambridge don and has written a number of well received books on various subjects pertaining to antiquity. Like the reputable scholar he is, Grant takes a careful, measured approach to his subject, always striving for objectivity. He begins his biography with a sober evaluation of the contemporary sources on Constantine’s life, both pagan and Christian. Grant notes the ideological bias that motivates many of the latter sources, discussing the flaws and strengths of such writers as Eusebius of Caesarea, but also recognizes the inherent prejudices of Constantine’s pagan critics (who were many).
  
  This just the facts, ma’am, approach allows the author to reach several well supported conclusions. Grant does a good job of describing Constantine’s strengths: his military prowess (although Grant notes that the majority of his victories were won in civil wars against other Romans); his enormous capacity to plan and implement ambitious, empire wide schemes; his gift for dissembling and conspiracy, absolutely essential qualities in an atmosphere of palace intrigue and backstabbing; and his subtlety in advancing his pro-Christian agenda in the face of a still overwhelmingly pagan elite. Grant also effectively rebuts conjectures that Constantine may have been simply seeking tactical advantage in employing Christianity as a unifying principle and that he may also have had lingering pagan sympathies if not outright beliefs. He documents the emperor’s sincere, unswerving Christian faith.
  
  At the same time, Grant is also careful to examine and evaluate Constantine’s flaws as a ruler and a human being. He notes how Constantine’s basic, soldierly approach to Christianity left him completely unsuited to understanding the torturous, complicated arguments over the nature of Christ’s divinity that resulted in violent, irremediable conflict between schisms, Arianism being one of the most well known. Even more importantly, Grant points out how Constantine’s looking to Christianity as a unifying principle for the empire contained a fatal flaw, his complete failure to consider the fissiparous, quarrelsome nature of the early Christians, their failure to achieve any unity of their own that continues to this day. Grant also describes Constantine’s personal failings, the worst of which undoubtedly has to be the murder of his first born son, Crispus, followed shortly thereafter by the assassination of his wife Fausta. As the author reasonably concludes, these are horrible, unforgivable crimes and simply cannot be excused even during a period as brutal and turbulent as late antiquity. Grant also notes Constantine’s geopolitical failures, the most egregious of these being his decision to provoke a war with the Sassanian Empire (located in what is now Iran) in the face of increasingly serious threats from barbarians in the Danube and along the Rhine.
  
  I recommend this book both to scholars of antiquity and also to laymen who are interested in learning more about this historical period. Those who seek to have their prejudices reinforced, however, would do better to go to the original source and read Eusebius.
  
• 
  Ian Racey

  Grant has a tough task trying to paint an accurate picture of Constantine, because, as he says himself (repeatedly), all of our sources about him are either hopelessly hagiographic, because he was the first Christian emperor and made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, or irredeemably hostile ... because he was the first Christian emperor and made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. But he does a good job, describing the actions of an excellent field general, a cautious and moderate policy maker who nevertheless acted from a place of conviction, while also condemning Constantine’s actions when they’re harmful and ill judged (provoking a war with Persia), ultimately pointless (his victories over the Goths and Sarmatians) or downright evil (his executions of his oldest son and empress). On the question of whether Constantine’s conversion was genuine or a shrewd political calculation, Grant’s answer boils down to “Both,” but it’s a conclusion that he reaches by exploring the subtleties of the situation and the historical context that led Constantine to the decisions he made, and it’s a thorough and well-rounded argument. Grant can be repetitive at times, and I’d have liked more time spent on the foundation of Constantinople.
• 
  Michael Lewyn

  Somewhat dry, but not insanely so. My takeaways from this book are that Constantine was an able military commander, but he was a little in over his head as an emperor: his overspending led to ruinous levels of taxation, which caused people to give up farming and become hermits or bandits, he continued to waste resources on a ruinous rivalry with Persia, and his division of the Empire between his children led to a series of pointless civil wars. On the other hand, the failures of his successors suggest that maybe he was in a no-win situation: maybe the Empire was simply too large and overstretched to be financially sustainable or politically manageable.
  
  Grant suggests that his conversion to Christianity, although probably sincere, was rational because Christians were a relatively cohesive and well-organized group, and having their support was helpful. However, his efforts to unite the Empire around Christianity failed because Christians were internally divided.
• 
  Jose

  I own some of Grant's work specifically on the Greeks and on Pompeii he seems to be a good source on the matters, however I understood from this book he hasn't as sympathetic in approach to the subject in this book The Man Himself Constantine The Great, he quotes both Sympathetic and Hostile writers on the Man that is both Christian Sources(Eusebius) and Pagan writers of the period, but I feel in his tone you can tell he is not a fan Of Constantine so while states he is trying to state a more nuanced picture that is one less biased or neither for or against I believe he sadly fails in doing so. The great about the book besides it's Subject the Man Himself and His accomplishments is the author despite his disdain for Him presents both sides of the coin so to speak and concludes the book the same as he started that seeing the information on him is either for or against there is not much we Know about him.
• 
  Joe Sabet

  A definite read for any numismatist collecting Constantinian era coins. Beyond that, the history is presented in an honest and clear way, since shortfalls of other kinds of accounts and inherent biases are mentioned. Grant’s work is excellent depending on the topic
• 
  Ginger Heskett

  I registered a book at BookCrossing.com!
  
  http://www.BookCrossing.com/journal/14340385
• 
  Johnny

  A nice short overview of Constantine the Great. I found the chapters sorted by themes rather that chronologically very refreshing
• 
  Nick

  A somewhat dry read, but it's a comprehensive and scholarly biography on Constantine. Michael Grant gives a good overview of Constantine's military campaigns, administrative reforms, his establishing of Constantinople, great construction projects, and most importantly his relations with Christianity. Grant also doesn't whitewash Constantine's darker side by covering the more negative aspects of his reign especially with how Constantine dealt with his eldest son Crispus and wife Fausta.
• 
  Jack

  Constantine the Great. What can I say that already isn't in the title. I have a passionate love for learning about the Roman Empire. Nothing make me sadder than reading about the barbarian incursions on the Empire's northern frontier while the threat in the East continues to grow against Constantinople. A tragedy every time I read about the civil wars after the retirement of Diocletian leading to the sole rule of Constantine. In his greatest hours he sowed the seeds of the destruction of the Western Empire. The first Christian monarch, while all powerful, could not bring the Arian Christians into line with the rest of Christianity...leading to punitive measure against those deemed heretic, providing a precedent for wars and inquisitions against those who would be labeled heretic in the future. He created consolidated an empire but weakened it. He ensured the western empire would long outlive him until 1453 at the expense of the west. He recruited heavily in the Germanic tribes making Germans comfortable commanding the Roman armies, too comfortable. Rome remained Roman only for about 100 years after his death, yet Byzantium grew powerful due to his efforts. All Roman Empire lovers should read this one.
• 
  Arminius

  Constantine was the first Catholic Emperor in Rome's History. He conquered many people because he believed that God was on his side. Constantine enacted administrative, financial, social and military reforms to strengthen the empire. He restructured the government, he also introduced new gold coin that became the standard for Byzantine and European currencies for more than a thousand years.
  
  The Roman army was reorganized to consist of mobile units, and garrison troops capable of countering internal threats and barbarian invasions.
  
  Constantine had conquered the Franks, the Alamanni, the Goths and the Sarmatians. He introduced Catholicism to his conquered lands leaving a mostly Catholic Europe in his wake.
• 
  Michael Vincent

  I read this over a period of many years, but overall it gave some interesting history and background to an important person in history. I mostly appreciated the chapters on Constantine and the Christian God and Church, the story of his conversion, and found interesting how many churches he (and his mother Helena) built.
• 
  J

  Very dry from the very beginning with an opening chapter on sources. Who starts a biography of a roman emperor who most readers will know very little about already with a chapter on that? The writing style is dry and turgid.
• 
  Sharon

  This took a long time since I read it only when charging my nook. A bit dry in parts, but that's history. Grant focused more on the battles and victories, and not so much on the expansion of Christianity.
• 
  Donna

  I really tried to get into this book, but finally gave up halfway through.
• 
  Douglas Wilson

  Okay.
• 
  Patrick

  Kindling-dry history of the emperor that transformed Rome and ensured it's survival by transferring the capital east.
• 
  Redsteve

  A solid general biography. 3rd/4th Centuries are not my favorite period and this book makes me no more excited about it.
• 
  Reynold Levocz

  As a student of History, I enjoyed this book's detail of an age that changed the world forever
• 
  Drew Van Gorder

  I learned quite a good deal about Constantine, his context of life, and some of the reasons why he made some of the decisions that he did. This book a great job of not only stating some of the decisions that Constantine made but also showing he's uneasy balance between being a Roman Emperor and also trying to be a man of faith.