What do you think?
Constantine and the Christian Empire
The most substantial biography ever written on the most important Roman emperor, Professor Charles M. Odahl has written a fascinating account of the life and reign of the first Christian emperor of the Roman world. Drawing on over a quarter of a century of research on sources relevant to the period and retracing the journeys made by Constantine across Europe and around the Mediterranean basin, this up-to-date biography provides students with a comprehensive knowledge of literary sources and research into the archaeology of the Constantinian era, and enables a more rounded and accurate portrait than has previously been available. Illustrated with ninety-two photographs and eight maps, Constantine and the Christian Empire is the standard work on the man and his life for scholars, students, and all those interested in Roman imperial, early Christian, and Byzantine imperial history.
424 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2001
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
March 1, 2013
The author certainly pats himself on the back quite a bit in the foreword/preface about being an authoritative expert. That's an annoying quirk of the author, as I don't think most authoritative experts need to openly assert it.
That aside, this was one of the more comprehensive, focused, and fair-minded treatments of Constantine I've yet come across. The final chapter is very helpful in placing this particular author and work in the context of scholarship on Constantine since the emperor's contemporary Eusebius of Caesarea and the pagan author Zosimus (late 5th cent.).
It is very accessible for the general reader with interest in the subject, but scholarly enough to be a resource worth returning to and using for more in-depth study. Fair treatment of Constantine is so far difficult for me to find, and I'm glad to have discovered this one.
In comparison with Peter Leithart's "Defending Constantine," I would say that this has historical interests alone while Leithart's historical narrative is constructed with theological polemic in mind. As fair and well as Leithart does his history, Odahl is probably the more reliable resource.
That aside, this was one of the more comprehensive, focused, and fair-minded treatments of Constantine I've yet come across. The final chapter is very helpful in placing this particular author and work in the context of scholarship on Constantine since the emperor's contemporary Eusebius of Caesarea and the pagan author Zosimus (late 5th cent.).
It is very accessible for the general reader with interest in the subject, but scholarly enough to be a resource worth returning to and using for more in-depth study. Fair treatment of Constantine is so far difficult for me to find, and I'm glad to have discovered this one.
In comparison with Peter Leithart's "Defending Constantine," I would say that this has historical interests alone while Leithart's historical narrative is constructed with theological polemic in mind. As fair and well as Leithart does his history, Odahl is probably the more reliable resource.
January 29, 2016
Constantine (the Roman Emperor who converted to, legalized, and promoted Christianity) is probably one of the most controversial people in church history. In my experience he is usually portrayed in one of three ways:
Version #1 - Bordering-on-Messianic Constantine - The righteous man who was God's chosen instrument to deliver, enrich, and empower His church. (i.e. the Roman Catholic / Eastern Orthodox version)
Version #2 - Conspiracy Theory Constantine - The savvy politician who hijacked Christianity, overseeing the deification of Jesus and compilation of the New Testament to suit his own (or possibly others') Machiavellian ends. (i.e. the Bart Ehrman / Dan Brown version)
Version #3 - Devil's Pawn Constantine - The pagan whose "conversion" unwittingly introduced into the Roman Catholic Church all the doctrinal errors and practices to which Protestants object (i.e. the Protestant / Dissenter version)
Thankfully, the author of this book does not have an obvious "Constantine is saintly/devious/evil" ax to grind. He gives a thorough account of Constantine's life and historical setting, relying on a large number of primary sources. The portrait that emerges bears a passing resemblance to each of the above versions, but shows them all to be extreme caricatures.
Constantine most certainly relieved Christians from persecution and actively promoted and enriched the Catholic Church while using his government power to inconvenience and/or punishing those outside it (whether pagans or "schismatic" Christians). His grasp of Christianity seemed very talismanic and syncretistic at first, giving rise to legitimate questions about his initial conversion. In his later years he appeared to have a decent grasp of the doctrines of the Catholic Church (which already espoused many of the doctrines to which Protestants object). He did use his position to summon councils that clarified/formalized a variety of beliefs, but they they were long-standing beliefs already held by the majority of Christians.
Whether all of this was good or not is, I suppose, a matter of debate (which the author of this book does not get into). As a pastor in a "Dissenter" denomination, I see Constantine's use of government authority to enforce doctrinal unity even against the dictates of conscience as setting a dark precedent that would persist in the Roman Catholic Church and the Magisterial wing of the Protestant Reformation for centuries. That said, to reduce this important man to saint or devil is a ridiculous oversimplification, and I greatly appreciate this author's work in giving a more balanced portrait of Constantine.
Version #1 - Bordering-on-Messianic Constantine - The righteous man who was God's chosen instrument to deliver, enrich, and empower His church. (i.e. the Roman Catholic / Eastern Orthodox version)
Version #2 - Conspiracy Theory Constantine - The savvy politician who hijacked Christianity, overseeing the deification of Jesus and compilation of the New Testament to suit his own (or possibly others') Machiavellian ends. (i.e. the Bart Ehrman / Dan Brown version)
Version #3 - Devil's Pawn Constantine - The pagan whose "conversion" unwittingly introduced into the Roman Catholic Church all the doctrinal errors and practices to which Protestants object (i.e. the Protestant / Dissenter version)
Thankfully, the author of this book does not have an obvious "Constantine is saintly/devious/evil" ax to grind. He gives a thorough account of Constantine's life and historical setting, relying on a large number of primary sources. The portrait that emerges bears a passing resemblance to each of the above versions, but shows them all to be extreme caricatures.
Constantine most certainly relieved Christians from persecution and actively promoted and enriched the Catholic Church while using his government power to inconvenience and/or punishing those outside it (whether pagans or "schismatic" Christians). His grasp of Christianity seemed very talismanic and syncretistic at first, giving rise to legitimate questions about his initial conversion. In his later years he appeared to have a decent grasp of the doctrines of the Catholic Church (which already espoused many of the doctrines to which Protestants object). He did use his position to summon councils that clarified/formalized a variety of beliefs, but they they were long-standing beliefs already held by the majority of Christians.
Whether all of this was good or not is, I suppose, a matter of debate (which the author of this book does not get into). As a pastor in a "Dissenter" denomination, I see Constantine's use of government authority to enforce doctrinal unity even against the dictates of conscience as setting a dark precedent that would persist in the Roman Catholic Church and the Magisterial wing of the Protestant Reformation for centuries. That said, to reduce this important man to saint or devil is a ridiculous oversimplification, and I greatly appreciate this author's work in giving a more balanced portrait of Constantine.
July 30, 2018
As the Roman emperor series goes, this is definitely one of the easier reads I have experienced along the way. I knew a little bit about Constantine through Dan Brown which isn't saying a ton and I learned about him through my Roman history courses during my BA which was a delight. One of the long held arguments in the classical academic field as far as I understand is whether Constantine became a christian, during his reign and was openly christian, or whether he became a christian on his death. Odahl definitely takes the stance that Constantine was a christian through most of his reign largely for both political reasons and because he likely genuinely believed in a god.
In the early years of Constantines life, he would be brought up in the East with his mother Helena who was no longer with Constantines father Constantius Chlorus, as he was part of the tetrarchy which Emperor Diocletian had constructed and was living mostly in Britain and Trier. While in the East Diocletian would take Constantine under his wing as he likely wished to have Constantius son become part of the tetrachy in the West once Diocletian and Constantius decided to retire. At this time however, the emergence of the once small cult of christianity was beginning to influence Roman society on a larger scale then had previously, largely threatening pagan customs and traditions in Rome and abroad. It became so bad to the point where even military conscription in the army -which had become an urgency for the empire with usurpers everywhere you looked - became an issue as some young men refused to join or to kill.
Eventually Galerius, another member of the Diocletians tetrarchy in the east - or Diocletians emperor in training encouraged Diocletian to resolve the issue of the christian problem and begin a persecution of the lot of them. Diocletian - so Odahl says- was apprehensive and reluctant to agree to this persecution but Galerius who would have a cruel streak was adament of the necessity of such a move.
Eventually when the persecution was underway, Constantius Chlorus (Constantines father) was reluctant to enforce these new persecutions and mandates in Britain and was very easy on the people living there, which only helped his popularity in ruling as he was very even handed. Constantine would eventually go over to join his father and learn a tremendous amount about not only administration and good governance, but a tremendous amount of religious tolerance and how to use it to his benefit politically.
When the tetrachy began to unravel Constantine stayed out of it, refusing to take part and instead keeping his people happy in Trier Gaul and Britain while members of the Tetrarchy such Maximian Dia and his son Maxentius and Galerius in the East began to fight for power. This civil dispute would force Diocletian out of his retirement in Spalatum in Croatia and he would elect a man named Licinius as part of the tetrarchy. Eventually such members of the tetrarchy would begin to fall out or come to unfortunate ends such as Maximian Dio who, after betraying Constantine, would kill himself and Galerius who would die from cancer of the penis. Constantine would then march onto Italy where Maxentius was becoming a bit of a known tyrant and Constantine would defeat him at the Battle of Mulvian Bridge.
Upon Constantines victory at Mulvian Bridge he would largely show acceptance to the christian religion as he believed that god had delivered him his victory - when in reality it was likely just Constantine's ability of a general over Maxentius. But he would largely devote himself to the christian cause. He would also create the Edict of Milan which finally allowed Romans to openly be christians. This would eventually becomes problematic for Licentius and Constantine.
Eventually Constantine and Licentius would come to blows as Licentius wanted his own empire to be pagan and he refused toleration of the christians and continued prosecuting them as Diocletian had. Odahl makes an interesting argument that when Constantine and Licentius did finally come to blows it was the first religious war or crusade. But the role of the empire would be decided at the battle of Chrysopolis where Licentius had been roundly defeated.
It would be at the conclusion of this battle that Constantine would make the once solid tetrarchy into a Constantian tetrachy where his sons would act as Caesars while he would take the role of Augustus.
To conclude out of my crazy thoughts, this book was very readable and quite good, I was a little apprehensive when I jumped into it as not all of the Roman biographies of the emperors have been pleasurable to read such as Vespasian which was very dry. But Odahl was very lively and exciting to read, my only real complaint is that he didn't spend very much time on the Nicene Council which was disappointing and what I thought to be one of the highlighting actions of his reign.
All in all the book was solid and I'd probably read it again!
In the early years of Constantines life, he would be brought up in the East with his mother Helena who was no longer with Constantines father Constantius Chlorus, as he was part of the tetrarchy which Emperor Diocletian had constructed and was living mostly in Britain and Trier. While in the East Diocletian would take Constantine under his wing as he likely wished to have Constantius son become part of the tetrachy in the West once Diocletian and Constantius decided to retire. At this time however, the emergence of the once small cult of christianity was beginning to influence Roman society on a larger scale then had previously, largely threatening pagan customs and traditions in Rome and abroad. It became so bad to the point where even military conscription in the army -which had become an urgency for the empire with usurpers everywhere you looked - became an issue as some young men refused to join or to kill.
Eventually Galerius, another member of the Diocletians tetrarchy in the east - or Diocletians emperor in training encouraged Diocletian to resolve the issue of the christian problem and begin a persecution of the lot of them. Diocletian - so Odahl says- was apprehensive and reluctant to agree to this persecution but Galerius who would have a cruel streak was adament of the necessity of such a move.
Eventually when the persecution was underway, Constantius Chlorus (Constantines father) was reluctant to enforce these new persecutions and mandates in Britain and was very easy on the people living there, which only helped his popularity in ruling as he was very even handed. Constantine would eventually go over to join his father and learn a tremendous amount about not only administration and good governance, but a tremendous amount of religious tolerance and how to use it to his benefit politically.
When the tetrachy began to unravel Constantine stayed out of it, refusing to take part and instead keeping his people happy in Trier Gaul and Britain while members of the Tetrarchy such Maximian Dia and his son Maxentius and Galerius in the East began to fight for power. This civil dispute would force Diocletian out of his retirement in Spalatum in Croatia and he would elect a man named Licinius as part of the tetrarchy. Eventually such members of the tetrarchy would begin to fall out or come to unfortunate ends such as Maximian Dio who, after betraying Constantine, would kill himself and Galerius who would die from cancer of the penis. Constantine would then march onto Italy where Maxentius was becoming a bit of a known tyrant and Constantine would defeat him at the Battle of Mulvian Bridge.
Upon Constantines victory at Mulvian Bridge he would largely show acceptance to the christian religion as he believed that god had delivered him his victory - when in reality it was likely just Constantine's ability of a general over Maxentius. But he would largely devote himself to the christian cause. He would also create the Edict of Milan which finally allowed Romans to openly be christians. This would eventually becomes problematic for Licentius and Constantine.
Eventually Constantine and Licentius would come to blows as Licentius wanted his own empire to be pagan and he refused toleration of the christians and continued prosecuting them as Diocletian had. Odahl makes an interesting argument that when Constantine and Licentius did finally come to blows it was the first religious war or crusade. But the role of the empire would be decided at the battle of Chrysopolis where Licentius had been roundly defeated.
It would be at the conclusion of this battle that Constantine would make the once solid tetrarchy into a Constantian tetrachy where his sons would act as Caesars while he would take the role of Augustus.
To conclude out of my crazy thoughts, this book was very readable and quite good, I was a little apprehensive when I jumped into it as not all of the Roman biographies of the emperors have been pleasurable to read such as Vespasian which was very dry. But Odahl was very lively and exciting to read, my only real complaint is that he didn't spend very much time on the Nicene Council which was disappointing and what I thought to be one of the highlighting actions of his reign.
All in all the book was solid and I'd probably read it again!
July 15, 2019
One of the most infuriating things about reading Roman emperor biographies is that the author never wants to focus on just the emperor and his life. They always want to use them as a stepping stone to some greater topic. With Caracalla, the author used him to talk about military tactics. Here, the author devotes a large portion to the rise of Christianity, which is great and it's relevant to the material,but sometimes I just want to read about the emperor himself, not war games or his policies or religious matters. I just want to know what made him tick, his vices, virtues, whom he killed and spared.
June 16, 2009
Very readable history. I have to admit that my most hated man in history (well, that's going a bit far) turned out to be more sympathetic upon this reading. Deluded, egomanical, manipulative, bloodthirsty, impulsive, but surprisingly learned and sincerely Christian as only an emporer might be. He did so much damage to the future of the church it is hard to estimate it. Like the U.S. fighting its fears in Vietnam, he "had to kill it to save it."
October 11, 2010
Constantine and the Christian empire does what many historical works fail to do, engage the reader. Odahl's narrative is very approachable without sacrificing historical accuracy. While his book relies heavily on the writings of Eusebius an in depth bibliography is provided for those who seek more insight. This is by far the greatest work on the life of Constantine and the second edition is a great addition to Odahl's body of work.
January 25, 2013
By far one of the best books on an emperor I have read. Paints Constantine as a human being, not a Christian savior. Takes visions he saw as literal and not spiritual, although does delve into the spiritual at points for obvious reasons. This author doesn't bog you down with endless sources, but gives very good analysis on a very controversial time and person. We all know how awesome Constantine was, but what did he leave behind? Read this book if you wanna know.
October 18, 2014
I took many classes with Professor Odahl at Boise State University, for one of them we were given his book to read. It is a very well written account, unlike some that bore you to tears. But I do have to say it was more enjoyable learning from him than just reading him. The two mixed together made for an excellent learning environment. The few I did take before he left were some of my favorite classes!
November 13, 2010
An excellent and balanced biography of one of the greatest of Roman emperors.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews