What do you think?
Rate this book
Domination: The Fall of the Roman Empire and the Rise of Christianity
This is the story of the fall of an Empire – and the rise of another.
Who spread Christianity, how, and why? In her quest to find the answer, Professor Alice Roberts takes us on a gripping investigative journey. From a secluded valley in south Wales to the shores of Brittany; from the heart of the Roman Empire in a time of political turmoil to the ancient city of Corinth in the footsteps of the apostle Paul; from Alexandria in the fourth century to Constantinople.
As the Roman Empire crumbled in Western Europe, a shadow of power remained, almost perfectly mapping onto its disappearing territories. And then, it continued to spread. Unearthing the archaeological clues and challenging long-established histories, Professor Roberts tells a remarkable story about the relationship between the Roman Empire and Christianity.
Lifting the veil on secrets that have been hidden in plain sight, this story is nothing short of astonishing.
Domination is a page-turning exploration of power and its survival.
Who spread Christianity, how, and why? In her quest to find the answer, Professor Alice Roberts takes us on a gripping investigative journey. From a secluded valley in south Wales to the shores of Brittany; from the heart of the Roman Empire in a time of political turmoil to the ancient city of Corinth in the footsteps of the apostle Paul; from Alexandria in the fourth century to Constantinople.
As the Roman Empire crumbled in Western Europe, a shadow of power remained, almost perfectly mapping onto its disappearing territories. And then, it continued to spread. Unearthing the archaeological clues and challenging long-established histories, Professor Roberts tells a remarkable story about the relationship between the Roman Empire and Christianity.
Lifting the veil on secrets that have been hidden in plain sight, this story is nothing short of astonishing.
Domination is a page-turning exploration of power and its survival.
10 pages, Audible Audio
First published August 28, 2025
About the author
Alice Roberts
43 books848 followersAlice May Roberts is an English anatomist, osteoarchaeologist, physical anthropologist, palaeopathologist, television presenter and author.
Roberts studied medicine and anatomy at Cardiff University, qualifying in 1997 as a physician with a Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery (MB BCh) degree, having gained an intercalated Bachelor of Science degree in anatomy. She earned a PhD in paleopathology in 2008 from the University of Bristol.
Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
Roberts studied medicine and anatomy at Cardiff University, qualifying in 1997 as a physician with a Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery (MB BCh) degree, having gained an intercalated Bachelor of Science degree in anatomy. She earned a PhD in paleopathology in 2008 from the University of Bristol.
Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 100 reviews
November 17, 2025
4.5 stars
Reviewing this could be interesting as it raises all sorts of issues as the book goes against many of the trends of the time, particularly in the UK. Alice Roberts is well known in the UK for her TV appearances on archaeological programmes. She trained as a medic and worked as a junior doctor. She went on to do a PhD in paleopathology and researched osteoarchaeology. She’s had a variety of roles, including being Chair of the British Humanist Association. This, of course, means she does have an opinion on the issue of how Christianity grew and spread.
There has also been an awful lot of vitriol heaped on Roberts on social media, especially on X from a variety of sources. There is a strand of particularly British nationalism spreading at present, often focussed on Reform UK and Nigel Farage. This involves the flag, a weird concept of what the Knights Templar were, deporting everyone who is not white and a version of some sort of pure Christianity. It’s all a load of nonsense (there are other more satisfactory words I could have used here), but it means Roberts has been subject to a good deal of criticism. There is a clear critique as Sebastian Milbank says:
“ her view is that Christianity’s success was due to its usefulness to elites, and that its members were primarily motivated by the desire for wealth and power.”
Roberts’s arguments are broader than this but views become fixed. It is important to remember this isn’t an academic historical tome. It is broader in scope and more polemical.
The book looks at the way Christianity grew from a small Jewish cult into the dominant religion in the Roman Empire. I’m not going to give a blow by blow account of this, but to just raise a few issues that struck me.
The first part of the book looks at archaeology and in particular at Wales, Cornwall and Brittany and at the way society developed as Roman influence declined. Often cemeteries were outside town walls. As time went on they often had chapels built and eventually roles were reversed and the church became more important than the cemetery. Another interesting development was that many roman villas, because of their size, became places of worship as the buildings were repurposed.
Roberts makes some interesting points about asceticism and suggests maybe it wasn’t always as it seemed. Eucherius of Lyon, when he went on a Lenten retreat to a monastery, took with him 1740 litres of wine and 66 kilos of cheese. She also suggests that Simon Stylites, who spent many years sat on top of a twenty-foot pillar, may have been fooling himself if he thought it was a way of avoiding people. When I first heard the story as a child, my first thought was “Where does he go to the toilet?” A question no one has ever satisfactorily answered.
Robert also points out that as the administration of the Church and the imperial administration grew ever closer, one principle was assured, “The rich stayed rich and the poor stayed poor.” Roberts spends a good deal of time looking at the life and conversion of Constantine and makes some interesting points about syncretism, the mixing of old and new ideas and the fluidity of moving between two sets of ideas. Christian conversion is often portrayed in very dichotomous terms, but in reality the situation was that of a gradual acceptance and movement, to and fro. Roberts also points out that the language of the Church is often straight from terms used by Roman administration. For example clergy, laity, baptistry, basilica, curia, ecclesia are all terms straight from roman antecedents.
Towards the end of the book Roberts argues that the structure and nature of the Church made it similar to a multi-divisional firm. She takes some of the economic arguments from Ekelund and Tollison and quotes them:
“In the corporate structure of Christendom the medieval monastery operated as a (downstream) franchised firm, receiving quality assurance and name-brand recognition from the Church of Rome in return for certain payments (upstream).”
The concept of the Church as an economic firm hasn’t gone down well. It has been discussed in academic circles for a while and even Adam Smith mentioned it, putting it blatantly in the mainstream has created a reaction.
This is by no means a flawless book and I think Roberts spends too long on some of the theological debates and heresies, but it does explode a few myths along the way. It explains why Christianity was attractive to the elites and the middle classes. The poor, of course, are almost invisible and I suspect their primary objective as always was survival. If you want a not too academic look at the rise of Christianity, then this may be for you.
Reviewing this could be interesting as it raises all sorts of issues as the book goes against many of the trends of the time, particularly in the UK. Alice Roberts is well known in the UK for her TV appearances on archaeological programmes. She trained as a medic and worked as a junior doctor. She went on to do a PhD in paleopathology and researched osteoarchaeology. She’s had a variety of roles, including being Chair of the British Humanist Association. This, of course, means she does have an opinion on the issue of how Christianity grew and spread.
There has also been an awful lot of vitriol heaped on Roberts on social media, especially on X from a variety of sources. There is a strand of particularly British nationalism spreading at present, often focussed on Reform UK and Nigel Farage. This involves the flag, a weird concept of what the Knights Templar were, deporting everyone who is not white and a version of some sort of pure Christianity. It’s all a load of nonsense (there are other more satisfactory words I could have used here), but it means Roberts has been subject to a good deal of criticism. There is a clear critique as Sebastian Milbank says:
“ her view is that Christianity’s success was due to its usefulness to elites, and that its members were primarily motivated by the desire for wealth and power.”
Roberts’s arguments are broader than this but views become fixed. It is important to remember this isn’t an academic historical tome. It is broader in scope and more polemical.
The book looks at the way Christianity grew from a small Jewish cult into the dominant religion in the Roman Empire. I’m not going to give a blow by blow account of this, but to just raise a few issues that struck me.
The first part of the book looks at archaeology and in particular at Wales, Cornwall and Brittany and at the way society developed as Roman influence declined. Often cemeteries were outside town walls. As time went on they often had chapels built and eventually roles were reversed and the church became more important than the cemetery. Another interesting development was that many roman villas, because of their size, became places of worship as the buildings were repurposed.
Roberts makes some interesting points about asceticism and suggests maybe it wasn’t always as it seemed. Eucherius of Lyon, when he went on a Lenten retreat to a monastery, took with him 1740 litres of wine and 66 kilos of cheese. She also suggests that Simon Stylites, who spent many years sat on top of a twenty-foot pillar, may have been fooling himself if he thought it was a way of avoiding people. When I first heard the story as a child, my first thought was “Where does he go to the toilet?” A question no one has ever satisfactorily answered.
Robert also points out that as the administration of the Church and the imperial administration grew ever closer, one principle was assured, “The rich stayed rich and the poor stayed poor.” Roberts spends a good deal of time looking at the life and conversion of Constantine and makes some interesting points about syncretism, the mixing of old and new ideas and the fluidity of moving between two sets of ideas. Christian conversion is often portrayed in very dichotomous terms, but in reality the situation was that of a gradual acceptance and movement, to and fro. Roberts also points out that the language of the Church is often straight from terms used by Roman administration. For example clergy, laity, baptistry, basilica, curia, ecclesia are all terms straight from roman antecedents.
Towards the end of the book Roberts argues that the structure and nature of the Church made it similar to a multi-divisional firm. She takes some of the economic arguments from Ekelund and Tollison and quotes them:
“In the corporate structure of Christendom the medieval monastery operated as a (downstream) franchised firm, receiving quality assurance and name-brand recognition from the Church of Rome in return for certain payments (upstream).”
The concept of the Church as an economic firm hasn’t gone down well. It has been discussed in academic circles for a while and even Adam Smith mentioned it, putting it blatantly in the mainstream has created a reaction.
This is by no means a flawless book and I think Roberts spends too long on some of the theological debates and heresies, but it does explode a few myths along the way. It explains why Christianity was attractive to the elites and the middle classes. The poor, of course, are almost invisible and I suspect their primary objective as always was survival. If you want a not too academic look at the rise of Christianity, then this may be for you.
November 4, 2025
The problem with this book is that it is aimed at a general, non-specialist audience, yet you have to be pretty familiar with the relevant history and periods to understand why it's a bad book. There have already been plenty of fairly recent books on the end of the Western Roman Empire and the development of western Christendom. Some of these have been by well-known experts in the relevant period and several have been aimed at the general reader. So what was the need for this new retelling of this story by a non-historian?
It seems the publisher wanted a new book by a known TV celebrity and the author had an axe she wanted to grind. Alice Roberts is a biologist, not a historian. She is associated with history-adjacent subjects thanks to her appearances on Time Team as an expert in her actual field: paleopathology, the study of ancient bones. And she's written some successful books on subjects associated with her real expertise. But she is also a past president of HumanistsUK and an anti-religious activist. And this book is essentially a piece of ideological activism disguised as a friendly history book.
Roberts' fairly unsubtle thesis is that Christianity came to be dominant in the West because it effectively took over the Roman Empire and replaced "Romanitas" with "Christianitas". It succeed, according to Roberts, because it was ruthlessly political and endlessly greedy. Forget all that stuff about early Christians being humble, impoverished, pious and ascetic, she says, they were actually elite, fairly rich, cynical and fake - but they used politics and economics to dominate.
That Christanity was transformed by its adoption by the later Roman emperors and that it became enmeshed with late Roman politics is not news to anyone who has studied just a bit of the relevant history. Nor is it news that, for many churchmen, money was more the object than piety. This is an old story. But Roberts works hard to make her readers believe that this was the whole story, or something close to it.
The problem with this is that it's far too simplistic, highly reductionist and badly argued. Roberts uses selective evidence, dubious interpretations and a grab bag of rhetorical tricks to drive home her ideological message to the exlusion of counter examples, other relevant information, nuance or objectivity. This isn't a history lesson, it's a sermon. It would take a long time to detail all the ways this book is not what it seems and is definitely not a sure or reasonable guide to these complex historical subjects - for those interested, see my detailed critique on History for Atheists. Suffice it to say the more you know about these periods of history and the subject matter she covers, the more obvious her biases and skewing of evidence is.
Unfortunately this won't be obvious to many general readers, which seems to be the point. This is not a good history book. Books on history with ideological agendas never are. Not recommended.
(P.S. And in case anyone thinks my issues with this book may be due to any religious bias on my part, I'm a lifelong atheist. So, no.)
It seems the publisher wanted a new book by a known TV celebrity and the author had an axe she wanted to grind. Alice Roberts is a biologist, not a historian. She is associated with history-adjacent subjects thanks to her appearances on Time Team as an expert in her actual field: paleopathology, the study of ancient bones. And she's written some successful books on subjects associated with her real expertise. But she is also a past president of HumanistsUK and an anti-religious activist. And this book is essentially a piece of ideological activism disguised as a friendly history book.
Roberts' fairly unsubtle thesis is that Christianity came to be dominant in the West because it effectively took over the Roman Empire and replaced "Romanitas" with "Christianitas". It succeed, according to Roberts, because it was ruthlessly political and endlessly greedy. Forget all that stuff about early Christians being humble, impoverished, pious and ascetic, she says, they were actually elite, fairly rich, cynical and fake - but they used politics and economics to dominate.
That Christanity was transformed by its adoption by the later Roman emperors and that it became enmeshed with late Roman politics is not news to anyone who has studied just a bit of the relevant history. Nor is it news that, for many churchmen, money was more the object than piety. This is an old story. But Roberts works hard to make her readers believe that this was the whole story, or something close to it.
The problem with this is that it's far too simplistic, highly reductionist and badly argued. Roberts uses selective evidence, dubious interpretations and a grab bag of rhetorical tricks to drive home her ideological message to the exlusion of counter examples, other relevant information, nuance or objectivity. This isn't a history lesson, it's a sermon. It would take a long time to detail all the ways this book is not what it seems and is definitely not a sure or reasonable guide to these complex historical subjects - for those interested, see my detailed critique on History for Atheists. Suffice it to say the more you know about these periods of history and the subject matter she covers, the more obvious her biases and skewing of evidence is.
Unfortunately this won't be obvious to many general readers, which seems to be the point. This is not a good history book. Books on history with ideological agendas never are. Not recommended.
(P.S. And in case anyone thinks my issues with this book may be due to any religious bias on my part, I'm a lifelong atheist. So, no.)
November 8, 2025
Having enjoyed Alice Roberts' programmes and her live presenting I was very much underwhelmed by this offering.
Roberts aims to tell the story of how Christianity came to dominate western Europe. At the centre is ancient Rome. The Rome and Roman emperors and various other powerful citizens who moved towards Christianity as the empire itself started to break down.
She does this and the early part of the book has some useful insight into the formation of Christian churches and, notably, saints who formed, led and influenced their flocks and the sites they worshipped at.
However, the book overall is light on archeology and other aspects that help to show that path to domination.
Like some other GR reviewers, I also became tired of Roberts' personal bias - she is a humanist - about those who sought and used religion some 2000 years ago. A further dislike was the absence of references in respect of the information and examples she writes of. Where and when are these examples quoted from and to what academic rigour or challenge have they been subject to [quoting a name is not a source or real reference]. Why did she choose to cite these rather than others and which arguments and sources did she exclude, and why?
This then is the main reason for my rating the book as 2 stars. Prof Roberts is a very capable communicator and writer but the book and its arguments falls short on saying anything new or revelatory in respect of Christianity and its path to being the dominant religion of Western Europe.
Roberts aims to tell the story of how Christianity came to dominate western Europe. At the centre is ancient Rome. The Rome and Roman emperors and various other powerful citizens who moved towards Christianity as the empire itself started to break down.
She does this and the early part of the book has some useful insight into the formation of Christian churches and, notably, saints who formed, led and influenced their flocks and the sites they worshipped at.
However, the book overall is light on archeology and other aspects that help to show that path to domination.
Like some other GR reviewers, I also became tired of Roberts' personal bias - she is a humanist - about those who sought and used religion some 2000 years ago. A further dislike was the absence of references in respect of the information and examples she writes of. Where and when are these examples quoted from and to what academic rigour or challenge have they been subject to [quoting a name is not a source or real reference]. Why did she choose to cite these rather than others and which arguments and sources did she exclude, and why?
This then is the main reason for my rating the book as 2 stars. Prof Roberts is a very capable communicator and writer but the book and its arguments falls short on saying anything new or revelatory in respect of Christianity and its path to being the dominant religion of Western Europe.
September 1, 2025
An excellent book shining new light on the Roman to post-Roman period in Britain and Europe. I am well read on this period, but what I liked about this book is that it was all new content and new ideas to me, not a rehash of existing works. The enthusiasm of Alice Roberts for her subject shines through, sweeping us along on a journey of discovery in an exciting read.
May 12, 2026
Intellectually dishonest. As History for Atheists' review says, "she is not a historian, she is an activist with a message. And this is the main reason why Domination is not a very good book."
My own lengthy discussion here.
My own lengthy discussion here.
September 11, 2025
3.75/5
3.75/5 (side note - It’s a very new book and only came out a couple of weeks ago but I didn’t seek it out, I just bought it in an airport)
It’s a decent overview of the transition of the later Roman Empire to Christianity and Christianity’s survival after the fall of the Western empire. The evidence is presented effectively and I did like the writing style. I did enjoy it that I could see me reading Robert’s other books at some point (I’ve had a couple of 2nd hand ones but never got round to them)
Normally I’d consider bringing up the author’s background and politics to be a bit cheap/lazy but it’s worth noting Roberts is a hardcore and at times political atheist (I’m not religious myself either but I’m not hardcore about it).
I think it’s worth mentioning because this is a very cynical interpretation of the rise of Christianity that’s all about elite power, status, and self interest . The main theme is that Christianity allowed the traditional elites to survive and maintain their positions during the transition from the fall of the Western empire to the various barbarian kingdoms. There was a revolving door between the church, aristocracy and military. Jobs within the church were well paying and more tax efficient than traditional administrative offices. The various heresies like Arianism aren’t about religion at all but are just different sections of the political elite finding an excuse to form factions using a culture war as an excuse. Christian charity is presented as a way for the church to extract money from the rich and give just enough to the poor while allowing the rich to absolve their guilt without having to actually interact with the poor. Asceticism (voluntarily living in very remote locations or in poverty) is about being seen to be doing it (to look good/status), not actually believing in it. The main reason for the Christianity becoming more popular is that the early Christians targeted the urban middle classes (who had some money) who in turn started to use Christianity as a networking opportunity and overtime this fed upwards towards the elite.
I don’t entirely disagree and think it makes some good points but I think it veers too far too much towards naked self interest and ignores the true believers.
3.75/5 (side note - It’s a very new book and only came out a couple of weeks ago but I didn’t seek it out, I just bought it in an airport)
It’s a decent overview of the transition of the later Roman Empire to Christianity and Christianity’s survival after the fall of the Western empire. The evidence is presented effectively and I did like the writing style. I did enjoy it that I could see me reading Robert’s other books at some point (I’ve had a couple of 2nd hand ones but never got round to them)
Normally I’d consider bringing up the author’s background and politics to be a bit cheap/lazy but it’s worth noting Roberts is a hardcore and at times political atheist (I’m not religious myself either but I’m not hardcore about it).
I think it’s worth mentioning because this is a very cynical interpretation of the rise of Christianity that’s all about elite power, status, and self interest . The main theme is that Christianity allowed the traditional elites to survive and maintain their positions during the transition from the fall of the Western empire to the various barbarian kingdoms. There was a revolving door between the church, aristocracy and military. Jobs within the church were well paying and more tax efficient than traditional administrative offices. The various heresies like Arianism aren’t about religion at all but are just different sections of the political elite finding an excuse to form factions using a culture war as an excuse. Christian charity is presented as a way for the church to extract money from the rich and give just enough to the poor while allowing the rich to absolve their guilt without having to actually interact with the poor. Asceticism (voluntarily living in very remote locations or in poverty) is about being seen to be doing it (to look good/status), not actually believing in it. The main reason for the Christianity becoming more popular is that the early Christians targeted the urban middle classes (who had some money) who in turn started to use Christianity as a networking opportunity and overtime this fed upwards towards the elite.
I don’t entirely disagree and think it makes some good points but I think it veers too far too much towards naked self interest and ignores the true believers.
January 17, 2026
In Domination, Professor Alice Roberts charts the evolution of Christianity from a small Jewish sect, to the dominant religion of the Western world.
As you would expect from Alice Roberts, it's well-written, meticulously researched and absolutely fascinating. Using a mixture of archeology, the historical record, sociology and even economics, she explores how and why Christianity spread, and more importantly, the people behind its rise.
Unfortunately the story she uncovers is all too familiar - keeping the elites in power and the poor in their place:
"...across Western Europe, monasteries were looking like sensible investments for landowning families - a resilient option, guaranteeing an income and careers in a time of instability. This is not to suggest that some abbots weren't devout or deeply believing in their religion and their mission. Some of them may well have been, but it's worth bearing in mind (in a way that the hagiographies tend to skate over) that their religion and mission happened to be extremely well aligned with their own naked self-interest: their own political status, economic prosperity, and the general preservation of the social elite"
And it makes sense too - if you've ever struggled to understand the dichotomy between the Bible's teachings of charity (it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God and all that) and the wealth and power of the church then this starts to explain it all.
December 31, 2025
As someone who thinks about the Roman Empire at least 10 times a day, it took me a while to overcome my sadness and read this book, but I'm glad I persevered. Roberts offers a daringly revisionist, even-handed and deeply researched account of the rise of Christianity from obscure sect to the premier religion of the Western world. She covers everything from the voyages of saints across Europe to the Roman elites' conversion and the role of Constantine, drawing back the veil of theology to expose the political, economic and social factors which also played a key role in the religion's survival and spread. It's definitely overturned many of my own preconceptions about both Rome and Christianity (at the end she even argues that the Roman Empire merely morphed into Christianity instead of being destroyed entirely!) and it's a fresh and welcome perspective on one of the oldest and most debated tales in history. Highly recommended for ancient history buffs or anyone looking to explain why so much of our modern world is the way it is.
May 3, 2026
I have loved Alice Roberts other books but found this book to be disappointing. I think the structure of the book is not good. I think the book is overly cynical and dismissive of peoples faith throughout history. Some of the "quotes" in the chapter about Paul are only partial quotes missing the context around them ( 1 Corinthians 3 3-7).Seems like a lot of the book is based on the authors personal beliefs about modern religion than how it would have been viewed historically.Pretty light on the archeology too.
October 29, 2025
I really never thought I’d give less than 5 stars to Prof Robs, but then this isn’t her specialist subject. She’s clearly interested and passionate about it (and maybe a tad biased being a committed atheist) but I found the thrust of her argument hard to follow. Yes religion seeks power and control and legitimacy through the status quo. Not exactly ground breaking. I enjoyed the discussion of Paul’s life and some of the Gaulish Christian romans and their lifestyles in the 5th century (especially as we know so little about Britain at the same time).
Just finished it feeling a little puzzled. What was the point?
Just finished it feeling a little puzzled. What was the point?
November 22, 2025
I am a big fan of Alice Roberts on TV but this book did not live up to my expectations. It is subtitled ‘The Fall of the Roman Empire and the Rise of Christianity’ but it was disjointed because it was not structured chronologically and the arguments were not always convincing. Some parts were interesting and at times enlightening but I’ll have to read other books to complete my understanding of the topics. I think I’ll add Diarmaid MacCulloch’s ‘A history of Christianity : the first three thousand years’ to my reading list.
January 24, 2026
Found it hard work
February 9, 2026
Overall, this was a very average book for me.
My first main problem with it is that the book is made to look like it is for anyone to pick up and read. However, it quickly becomes apparent that you need to have at least a basic understanding of the Roman Empire to understand even things such as the names for the regions. I regularly found myself googling names, dates, and places for the additional context or explanations that were lacking at times.
Secondly, reading about the author's own outspoken views on religion as an atheist makes the critical argument in this book a bit harder to swallow. The main theme throughout the book is that the church spread through Roman society, not because the religion appealed any differently to other religons but it was the fact that the church was a way for the upper and middle classes to gain an economic advantage and the preservation of their status during a turbulent time. I agree with this idea, but she regularly argues against the religious aspect of the rise of the Christian church and reduces it to make it just look like the best business at the time.
Lastly, I found the book to be jumpy. In terms of short chapters, which I did not quite gather the theme of and also the sheer abundance of names and dates to back up small points mid chapter.
Overall, I found the book to be interesting, and I did learn a lot from it. I just feel the author's view is biased quite heavily, which is disappointing as it massively takes away from a really interesting time in history.
My first main problem with it is that the book is made to look like it is for anyone to pick up and read. However, it quickly becomes apparent that you need to have at least a basic understanding of the Roman Empire to understand even things such as the names for the regions. I regularly found myself googling names, dates, and places for the additional context or explanations that were lacking at times.
Secondly, reading about the author's own outspoken views on religion as an atheist makes the critical argument in this book a bit harder to swallow. The main theme throughout the book is that the church spread through Roman society, not because the religion appealed any differently to other religons but it was the fact that the church was a way for the upper and middle classes to gain an economic advantage and the preservation of their status during a turbulent time. I agree with this idea, but she regularly argues against the religious aspect of the rise of the Christian church and reduces it to make it just look like the best business at the time.
Lastly, I found the book to be jumpy. In terms of short chapters, which I did not quite gather the theme of and also the sheer abundance of names and dates to back up small points mid chapter.
Overall, I found the book to be interesting, and I did learn a lot from it. I just feel the author's view is biased quite heavily, which is disappointing as it massively takes away from a really interesting time in history.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 10, 2026
It was not the absolute worst book I've read but it was close. It failed to answer any of the questions it set out to answer and failed to relate directly to the title (obvious rip off of domination) and subtitle- was this book really about the fall of the Roman empire or rise of Christianity? Not really, or at least not enough. The structure of the book was abysmal and didn't make sense until a review rightly pointed out that it read like a documentary TV script. There was no thematic or chronological structure and it seemed large sections were completely random- for example a shockingly large (and incoherent) section was dedicated to a monetary in Wales. Any good ideas or points are so poorly communicated they become almost lost entirely.
The bias in this book is intense- and that's coming from someone who largely agrees with the thesis and economic arguments around early church structures. A brief look into things show selective source selection and poor referencing in general. To be honest I don't think I've read an academic book with sourcing this bad for a while.
Finally I don't think this book knows what is is or who it is for- and perhaps the author should have answered those questions before answering the who, how and why of early Christianity and Roman empire.
The bias in this book is intense- and that's coming from someone who largely agrees with the thesis and economic arguments around early church structures. A brief look into things show selective source selection and poor referencing in general. To be honest I don't think I've read an academic book with sourcing this bad for a while.
Finally I don't think this book knows what is is or who it is for- and perhaps the author should have answered those questions before answering the who, how and why of early Christianity and Roman empire.
January 27, 2026
I have loved everything else by Alice Roberts so far, and came to this book with high expectations, excited to see her taken on a more ambitious challenge than in previous, more regional and Britain-centered works (nothing wrong with that, just that this books spans a a much larger cultural and geographical area than Buried or The Celts).
I was terribly dissapointed. For a book that is all about Rome and Christianity’s expansion in the Roman world, the books spends more than ONE THIRD of its length in some small monasteries in Great Britain, an area insignificant to the spread of christianity and to the roman empire as a whole, and discusses at length politics and people that existed AFTER the fall of the Roman empire. I understand Roberts is British, but this WASNT a book about Britain. Then the book meanders througj the Roman empire, choosing to focus onnmaterial culture when this has little to tell us, the author even admits this, and hits the reader i. The hesd with her thesis about christianity being about PEOPLE and not IDEAS (a valid thesis) so many times over the head one is left believing the author thinks her readers are stupid. Also what kind of book tht covers such niche places as Wales (sorry british people, but no one outside of great Britain knows anything about Wales) and travels all the way to Asia Minor doesnt have a map???? Even I, who have read a lot about the Roman Empire was a bit lost. Literally, geographically lost.
All in all the book is repetitive, organized in a baffling way, treats the reader as if they were stupid, and is a huge miss. Very dissapointed.
I was terribly dissapointed. For a book that is all about Rome and Christianity’s expansion in the Roman world, the books spends more than ONE THIRD of its length in some small monasteries in Great Britain, an area insignificant to the spread of christianity and to the roman empire as a whole, and discusses at length politics and people that existed AFTER the fall of the Roman empire. I understand Roberts is British, but this WASNT a book about Britain. Then the book meanders througj the Roman empire, choosing to focus onnmaterial culture when this has little to tell us, the author even admits this, and hits the reader i. The hesd with her thesis about christianity being about PEOPLE and not IDEAS (a valid thesis) so many times over the head one is left believing the author thinks her readers are stupid. Also what kind of book tht covers such niche places as Wales (sorry british people, but no one outside of great Britain knows anything about Wales) and travels all the way to Asia Minor doesnt have a map???? Even I, who have read a lot about the Roman Empire was a bit lost. Literally, geographically lost.
All in all the book is repetitive, organized in a baffling way, treats the reader as if they were stupid, and is a huge miss. Very dissapointed.
February 19, 2026
Rating: 3.5/5
It pains me to admit that this isn't Alice's most engaging work. While it is refreshing to have a critical, humanist view on the Church and Christianity, and I very much enjoyed the fact that Alice is willing to put these institutions under scrutiny, the book was slow and in some cases quite dry - in truth I think that is down to me as I struggle with the complexities of Roman and Byzantine history. So, multiple Roman players confused me quite a bit. What this book does achieve though, is a look at how these ancient institutions work and how they leveraged the poor for their own financial gains. I've always been critical of the Church's role in the power and politics of the Medieval period, but I am aware that without it, I wouldn't have the historical stories and sources that I very much enjoy. This book puts you in a gray area, you can see the exploitative measures of the Church took to gain prominence but you can also see the good that it provided. In the modern and more secular age, this kind of study about the church is important, as we can look into why the Church is the way it is. Alice is very good at making you think, and although the chronological history is dry subject matter, the moments of critique were interesting and I think Alice is trying to open up a conversation about one of the world's most dominant forces spiritually and politically, especially as religious radicalism is on the rise in places like the US.
I may have to revisit in the future, but ultimately this was a challenging one for me.
It pains me to admit that this isn't Alice's most engaging work. While it is refreshing to have a critical, humanist view on the Church and Christianity, and I very much enjoyed the fact that Alice is willing to put these institutions under scrutiny, the book was slow and in some cases quite dry - in truth I think that is down to me as I struggle with the complexities of Roman and Byzantine history. So, multiple Roman players confused me quite a bit. What this book does achieve though, is a look at how these ancient institutions work and how they leveraged the poor for their own financial gains. I've always been critical of the Church's role in the power and politics of the Medieval period, but I am aware that without it, I wouldn't have the historical stories and sources that I very much enjoy. This book puts you in a gray area, you can see the exploitative measures of the Church took to gain prominence but you can also see the good that it provided. In the modern and more secular age, this kind of study about the church is important, as we can look into why the Church is the way it is. Alice is very good at making you think, and although the chronological history is dry subject matter, the moments of critique were interesting and I think Alice is trying to open up a conversation about one of the world's most dominant forces spiritually and politically, especially as religious radicalism is on the rise in places like the US.
I may have to revisit in the future, but ultimately this was a challenging one for me.
January 18, 2026
7/10 - A really interesting puzzling together of how Roman life and the rise of the Church become intertwined. Why did the church happen, but from a social history perspective rather than theological.
March 8, 2026
Well, I absolutely loved the prof’s take on this part of history. It makes sense that the early church - basically a minor cult- got taken over by those with money and status to keep people in their place. In many ways and places it hasn’t changed. I’d love to hear or read more on the subject of how we were duped by this religion for so long.
May 16, 2026
Really interesting narrative throughout on how many of us in the western world think Christianity/the Church ‘should’ be spoken about. A little heavy going I found although that may be my personal interests didn’t quite align with the specific subject matter topics discussed in sections.
October 14, 2025
4+. Wonderful look at how Christianity used economics and the Roman Empire to spread.
March 9, 2026
A fascinating topic and I certainly learnt some interesting information. Plenty of in depth research but overall I did not find it as engaging as I had hoped.
June 6, 2026
Interesting topic, but a tough read. Lots of big words for a thicko like me, i think the author assumed i had a masters in history... try btec in travel and tourism,
Nearly DNFed it about 37 times, but ultimately glad I ploughed on as there is plenty to learn.
If you're not a weak reader go for it.
Nearly DNFed it about 37 times, but ultimately glad I ploughed on as there is plenty to learn.
If you're not a weak reader go for it.
March 30, 2026
interesting insights meticulously evidenced but quite hard work. the reconstruction of early Christianity and the apostles was a particular highlight. sadly concludes that Roman empire or Christian empire, both are built on the foundations of the wealthy protecting themselves and feeling better through conspicuous acts of kindness, although never enough to deliver equality.
March 3, 2026
annoying to read a book that’s clearly meant to be a TV show (“there I go again”), can a girl get a book about the dark ages that isn’t stylistically weird
May 14, 2026
If you're an archaeologist or a historian, msot of your work will be starting with the evidence and trying to create a story from that. Working backwards, in a sense. You'll piece as much together as you can and hopefully that gives you a reasonable narrative - which can now be told to those interested in that history. At this point, the work doesn't have to go backwards, it can be a straightforward, chronological telling of the story.
But that's not what we get here. We have a very disjointed story, much of which is more commentary than narrative - and often inconclusive commentary.
In chronology terms, we start in Roman Britain and France, and the years following that when the Romans had left but Christianity had not. At some point we then come to discussion of Constantine and his conversion, we're treated to some stuff on the Council of Nicaea, and there's a bit about St. Paul and what he got up to. This latter piece, which to me should have been the starting point, is about two thirds in. We also have a lot of pieces that don't specifically cover one point in the spread of the religion, such as those dealing with how the church exploits the idea of giving to the poor.
When any of these sections are giving a narrative history of something - such as the Council of Nicaea or the travels of St. Paul, it does become readable. But other sections are not narrative - there's mostly a lot of commentary on things, with ideas often becoming repeated, and these sections drag on for longer than necessary, often without any reasonable conclusion. A large section of the book, for instance, tries to discuss how Constantine was converted - after all of which, it's concluded that we don't know, and that it doesn't matter anyway. So why spend so much time on this? Why include so much commentary on how the church exploits welfare - those ideas could be covered in a few pages.
Perhaps it's not easy to document in linear form the spread of Christianity from a Roman point of view, with the Roman Empire having been so large - Christianity must necessrily have developed at diferent rates and times at the various extremities of the empire, but some attempt at this would be preferable. Understanding anything in history is always helped by understanding what has preceded it. So I can't help feeling that this would be a far more engaging book if it at least tried to have that chronology, and a reasonable pace to it that doesn't involve many pages covering a simple idea.
But that's not what we get here. We have a very disjointed story, much of which is more commentary than narrative - and often inconclusive commentary.
In chronology terms, we start in Roman Britain and France, and the years following that when the Romans had left but Christianity had not. At some point we then come to discussion of Constantine and his conversion, we're treated to some stuff on the Council of Nicaea, and there's a bit about St. Paul and what he got up to. This latter piece, which to me should have been the starting point, is about two thirds in. We also have a lot of pieces that don't specifically cover one point in the spread of the religion, such as those dealing with how the church exploits the idea of giving to the poor.
When any of these sections are giving a narrative history of something - such as the Council of Nicaea or the travels of St. Paul, it does become readable. But other sections are not narrative - there's mostly a lot of commentary on things, with ideas often becoming repeated, and these sections drag on for longer than necessary, often without any reasonable conclusion. A large section of the book, for instance, tries to discuss how Constantine was converted - after all of which, it's concluded that we don't know, and that it doesn't matter anyway. So why spend so much time on this? Why include so much commentary on how the church exploits welfare - those ideas could be covered in a few pages.
Perhaps it's not easy to document in linear form the spread of Christianity from a Roman point of view, with the Roman Empire having been so large - Christianity must necessrily have developed at diferent rates and times at the various extremities of the empire, but some attempt at this would be preferable. Understanding anything in history is always helped by understanding what has preceded it. So I can't help feeling that this would be a far more engaging book if it at least tried to have that chronology, and a reasonable pace to it that doesn't involve many pages covering a simple idea.
August 6, 2026
While I opened this book hoping for a well-reasoned, well-researched read on the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of Christianity, I regretfully discovered that it is, in fact, a polemical work written by an activist with an agenda. Professor Alice Roberts (and yes, she makes sure we all know that she is a Professor) is a biologist and not an expert in late Roman/ early medieval history by any means. She bases her “groundbreaking conclusions” on flawed logic and a very clear bias. Rather than present all facts in an objective manner, she cherry-picks to prove her anti-religious agenda. Roberts had clearly already decided upon said agenda before she even started researching for or writing this book. She is certainly allowed to have an opinion—we all have biases—but I wish she had at least presented the evidence fairly. I fear many without a deep knowledge of history will simply take her at her word without appreciating just how reductionist her book is.
While there are many things I could say about the historicity in this book, one glaring fault is Roberts’ complete inability to understand that early Christians just might have had other reasons to convert beyond wealth and power. Some just might have actually believed in the Gospel and the hope it provided. Some ascetics just might have lived the way they did to grow closer to God, at least in part, and not just to get attention as Roberts claims. Roberts spends a good deal of time trying to cast doubt on the role of Christianity during Constantine’s reign leading up to and following the Battle of Milvian Bridge. She tries very hard to demonstrate that Constantine was not as great a champion of Christianity as other historians claim, and that everything Constantine did do for Christianity was “business as usual” (p. 225) — i.e., simply a means of consolidating his power. It barely registers to her that maybe, just maybe, the religion meant something to him personally. (I am not saying that it necessarily did, merely that it is a possibility to consider.) Instead she claims that whether it did or not “doesn’t really matter” (p. 224). To me, it seems she can’t fathom why religion would mean anything to anyone personally, and is therefore missing a huge part of the explanation for Christianity’s rise. Roberts exerts a great deal of effort trying to disprove apologist sources in order to prove her personal thesis that religion is all about power, without considering that maybe, just maybe, some of the sources that suggest otherwise might have kernels of truth. Roberts does not stop to consider it, because doing so would be incompatible with her predetermined worldview.
Instead, Roberts writes that "as early as 312, Constantine may have realised how politically useful the Christian Church could be," even though, as Roberts herself acknowledges, only around 1-2% of the population were likely Christian at the time (p. 350). Despite carefully reading this book, I do not understand how this tiny, persecuted sect was "politically useful." But I suppose I will have to take Roberts' word for it.
On p. 258, Roberts writes:
I still do not understand how it is "abundantly clear" that theology is not important to the understanding of the rise of Christianity. Roberts seems to think it's just self-evident. Of course, social, political, economic, and environmental factors all play a role and should not be overlooked. But it is an error to say that they are the entire story and gloss over the actual Christian message itself.
She reveals her bias plainly on p. 368:
In other words, Roberts has a vendetta against organized religion, and has set out to prove that it is solely about money and power. She has written an entire book to prove this premise, without considering any evidence to the contrary. For example, she uses the story of St. Lawrence's martyrdom as evidence for her argument that the Church hoarded wealth. While I certainly do not deny that, in many cases, the Church did hoard wealth, Roberts' recounting of St. Lawrence (like many of her examples) is skewed and devoid of the full picture. On pp. 270-71, she writes:
Roberts fails to mention that according to Prudentius's account, in the aforementioned three days, Lawrence distributed as much Church property to the poor as possible. But why would she mention this detail? It would portray Christians in a more favourable light, and Roberts simply can't have that.
She makes many other passing remarks without providing any evidence to back them up, like this lovely zinger at p. 278: "early adherents [to Christianity] were encouraged to [...] distance themselves from their families (a common theme in many cults)." While some converts certainly chose faith over disapproving family members (e.g. Perpetua) or left their homes for ascetic reasons (e.g. Anthony the Great), the early Church in fact emphasized honouring parents, caring for relatives, and maintaining faithful households (see, for example, 1 Timothy 5:8). Roberts provides no explanation for her remark, so I am left wondering what exactly it is founded upon, other than her clear vitriol for Christianity. My review is long enough, so I will not address all of Roberts' illogical declarations (of which there are many), as that would probably be a book in and of itself.
Admittedly, I have my own biases and come from a Christian worldview, but I deeply value reason, truth, and objectivity when it comes to analyzing and recounting history. I am not looking for Roberts to praise Christianity, and I actually agree that power and wealth did play a role in the rise of Christianity. But plenty of atheists and historians concur that there is much that this book overlooks. Roberts does not seem concerned with the pursuit of truth but rather with supporting her own agenda, and that, in my opinion, is a problem, whether the author is an atheist, a Christian, or neither.
Putting aside the lack of objectivity in this book (as I have gone on about that for long enough), I personally disliked Roberts’ writing style. She often uses extremely long, rambling sentences with plenty of semicolons, brackets, and sentence fragments such that it is difficult for the reader to follow along. The text seems as if it were written to be a voice-over script for one of Roberts’ television shows rather than a book. At least if it were the former, having proper grammar would be less important.
There are many far better, more objective books on the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of Christianity, many of which are highlighted in Tim O’Neill’s excellent and thorough review of Domination on “History for Atheists.” I formed my opinion independently, but it captures many of my thoughts and provides concrete examples of how Roberts’ book falls short. I would recommend checking it out: https://historyforatheists.com/2025/1...
While there are many things I could say about the historicity in this book, one glaring fault is Roberts’ complete inability to understand that early Christians just might have had other reasons to convert beyond wealth and power. Some just might have actually believed in the Gospel and the hope it provided. Some ascetics just might have lived the way they did to grow closer to God, at least in part, and not just to get attention as Roberts claims. Roberts spends a good deal of time trying to cast doubt on the role of Christianity during Constantine’s reign leading up to and following the Battle of Milvian Bridge. She tries very hard to demonstrate that Constantine was not as great a champion of Christianity as other historians claim, and that everything Constantine did do for Christianity was “business as usual” (p. 225) — i.e., simply a means of consolidating his power. It barely registers to her that maybe, just maybe, the religion meant something to him personally. (I am not saying that it necessarily did, merely that it is a possibility to consider.) Instead she claims that whether it did or not “doesn’t really matter” (p. 224). To me, it seems she can’t fathom why religion would mean anything to anyone personally, and is therefore missing a huge part of the explanation for Christianity’s rise. Roberts exerts a great deal of effort trying to disprove apologist sources in order to prove her personal thesis that religion is all about power, without considering that maybe, just maybe, some of the sources that suggest otherwise might have kernels of truth. Roberts does not stop to consider it, because doing so would be incompatible with her predetermined worldview.
Instead, Roberts writes that "as early as 312, Constantine may have realised how politically useful the Christian Church could be," even though, as Roberts herself acknowledges, only around 1-2% of the population were likely Christian at the time (p. 350). Despite carefully reading this book, I do not understand how this tiny, persecuted sect was "politically useful." But I suppose I will have to take Roberts' word for it.
On p. 258, Roberts writes:
What is abundantly clear is that, when it comes to understanding the rise of Christianity in the third and fourth centuries, this is not a theological question, to be resolved only by scrutinising scripture or hagiographies. The ideas contained in this religious movement had to be appealing, certainly. But there is primarily a social, political and economic question - and a very complex one, involving the destabilising influences of environmental crises as well as the way in which a new form of community, forming around one particular cult, was developing its own economic and political power within the Roman Empire.
I still do not understand how it is "abundantly clear" that theology is not important to the understanding of the rise of Christianity. Roberts seems to think it's just self-evident. Of course, social, political, economic, and environmental factors all play a role and should not be overlooked. But it is an error to say that they are the entire story and gloss over the actual Christian message itself.
She reveals her bias plainly on p. 368:
I’m sure that apologist historians (including some who claim not to be Christian, but seem to be suffering some kind of Stockholm syndrome) and theologians, and lots of other people who want to believe that organised religion is about something other than money or power, will be queuing up to shoot me down on this.
In other words, Roberts has a vendetta against organized religion, and has set out to prove that it is solely about money and power. She has written an entire book to prove this premise, without considering any evidence to the contrary. For example, she uses the story of St. Lawrence's martyrdom as evidence for her argument that the Church hoarded wealth. While I certainly do not deny that, in many cases, the Church did hoard wealth, Roberts' recounting of St. Lawrence (like many of her examples) is skewed and devoid of the full picture. On pp. 270-71, she writes:
This third-century story, recounted in gory detail by the Roman poet Prudentius, describes how the greedy prefect of Rome was effectively auditing the wealth of the Church, and asked the deacon Laurence (effectively the treasurer) to assemble the treasure. Laurence asks for three days to do this, promising the prefect that the nave and colonnades will be glittering with gold and stuffed full of coins. But when the prefect duly arrives, it turns out that the deacon has filled the church, not with pecuniary riches, but with a great mass of the poor and diseased, crying out for alms. The disappointment of the prefect was fatal to Laurence, who was literally roasted for this unusual attempt at tax evasion.
Roberts fails to mention that according to Prudentius's account, in the aforementioned three days, Lawrence distributed as much Church property to the poor as possible. But why would she mention this detail? It would portray Christians in a more favourable light, and Roberts simply can't have that.
She makes many other passing remarks without providing any evidence to back them up, like this lovely zinger at p. 278: "early adherents [to Christianity] were encouraged to [...] distance themselves from their families (a common theme in many cults)." While some converts certainly chose faith over disapproving family members (e.g. Perpetua) or left their homes for ascetic reasons (e.g. Anthony the Great), the early Church in fact emphasized honouring parents, caring for relatives, and maintaining faithful households (see, for example, 1 Timothy 5:8). Roberts provides no explanation for her remark, so I am left wondering what exactly it is founded upon, other than her clear vitriol for Christianity. My review is long enough, so I will not address all of Roberts' illogical declarations (of which there are many), as that would probably be a book in and of itself.
Admittedly, I have my own biases and come from a Christian worldview, but I deeply value reason, truth, and objectivity when it comes to analyzing and recounting history. I am not looking for Roberts to praise Christianity, and I actually agree that power and wealth did play a role in the rise of Christianity. But plenty of atheists and historians concur that there is much that this book overlooks. Roberts does not seem concerned with the pursuit of truth but rather with supporting her own agenda, and that, in my opinion, is a problem, whether the author is an atheist, a Christian, or neither.
Putting aside the lack of objectivity in this book (as I have gone on about that for long enough), I personally disliked Roberts’ writing style. She often uses extremely long, rambling sentences with plenty of semicolons, brackets, and sentence fragments such that it is difficult for the reader to follow along. The text seems as if it were written to be a voice-over script for one of Roberts’ television shows rather than a book. At least if it were the former, having proper grammar would be less important.
There are many far better, more objective books on the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of Christianity, many of which are highlighted in Tim O’Neill’s excellent and thorough review of Domination on “History for Atheists.” I formed my opinion independently, but it captures many of my thoughts and provides concrete examples of how Roberts’ book falls short. I would recommend checking it out: https://historyforatheists.com/2025/1...
February 3, 2026
I found the first section set in Wales and Brittany a little hard going but after that the book got more into its stride as it developed its central theme of how the late Roman Empire morphed into or was absorbed by Christianity. The second half of the book ends up being one extended metaphor or perhaps not a metaphor but a thesis that the Church was primarily a business and any theology can be dismissed as merely branding. This began to wear thin as it went on for the best part of 200 pages.
For a more in depth and critical review of the book search for the review on the History for Atheists site. It is very through and provides a different perspective on the book and the author's intentions in writing it. The Guardian review by Frank Cottrel-Boyce is also interesting.
For a more in depth and critical review of the book search for the review on the History for Atheists site. It is very through and provides a different perspective on the book and the author's intentions in writing it. The Guardian review by Frank Cottrel-Boyce is also interesting.
October 21, 2025
I have always considered the Church as a vast corporation with a powerful and enduring religious brand — a structure built not only on faith, but on hierarchy, influence, and control. In many ways, all religions can be viewed through this same lens: as systems of belief that have evolved into organisations managing immense human, cultural, and political capital. It was with this perspective that I approached Professor Alice Roberts’ Domination, a work that examines how religion, power, and identity have intertwined throughout history.
Although Domination proved to be an enlightened and thoroughly enjoyable read, I found it somewhat repetitive towards the end. Nevertheless, my initial thoughts about the institutional nature of religion were largely confirmed — only now with more substance, evidence, and, as the saying goes, “more meat on the bone.” Roberts’ meticulous research and accessible style lend authority to arguments that question long-held assumptions about the role of the Church in shaping Western civilisation.
Although Domination proved to be an enlightened and thoroughly enjoyable read, I found it somewhat repetitive towards the end. Nevertheless, my initial thoughts about the institutional nature of religion were largely confirmed — only now with more substance, evidence, and, as the saying goes, “more meat on the bone.” Roberts’ meticulous research and accessible style lend authority to arguments that question long-held assumptions about the role of the Church in shaping Western civilisation.
January 7, 2026
I devoured 'Ancestors' and 'Burials' and enjoyed 'Crypts' although I did feel that one was getting clunky. That feeling was exacerbated with 'Domination' and it's taken me ages to finish it because I felt like I had to come back to it rather than because I was actually enjoying reading it.
As always, Prof Alice's research is second-to-none and her writing style is both informative and readable. I also liked that she was challenging the received story of how Christianity spread and I think she was right to call so many entrenched stories into question. I feel like the scope of the story made it unwieldy.
I look forward to whatever the next book in the series will be and have been trying to predict the title, beginning with 'E.' I hope it will be a return to form.
As always, Prof Alice's research is second-to-none and her writing style is both informative and readable. I also liked that she was challenging the received story of how Christianity spread and I think she was right to call so many entrenched stories into question. I feel like the scope of the story made it unwieldy.
I look forward to whatever the next book in the series will be and have been trying to predict the title, beginning with 'E.' I hope it will be a return to form.
November 6, 2025
The story or maybe a story or even an understanding of how Christianity sucseeded over the Romans, or maybe it was how the Romans became the Christians. I don't doubt a word of it but facts are hard to come by and opinions are not. The Romans once had a huge empire and it was sqandered away just like our western civilisation is doing now. The Emperors gave way to Kings but the people stayed the same and the smart and privileged moved with the times just as they will today.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 100 reviews