What do you think?
Rate this book
Domination
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.
432 pages, Hardcover
First published August 28, 2025
251 people are currently reading
1075 people want to read
About the author
Alice Roberts
39 books794 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 58 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.
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.
February 4, 2026
Can we have zero stars for intellectual dishonesty?
Roberts' bias is quite astonishing. Is the book exciting? It definitely reads like a BBC documentary script (and I'm sure we'll get that soon enough). But is it good? Not really. If this is historiography, then The God Delusion was philosophy.
Lengthy discussion here.
Early Christianity, the fall of the Roman empire, theology, biblical literature and languages—these topics are far from Roberts' own academic background. This is further proven by how poor her general research is. I would like to see the full bibliography though, as the selected references provided are pitiful and point to a gap between the data and her conclusions. Then, the rhetoric is tainted by a smug secularism unwarranted in scholarship.
It's hard to understand how something like this is published. Well... I guess it isn't. Once an author provides reliable sales, they get to write whatever. The skeleton is Gibbon, and Roberts adds little new apart from some archaeological finds. But the message of the book isn't actually built on any newly "unveiled secrets" (Roberts' words). The archaeology is merely window dressing for her prejudicial sermon; the disconnect between these finds and her conclusions about early Christianity (going back to the apostles) is ridiculous, and I don't think anyone really takes her seriously...
Before anyone concludes that Roberts' book is welcomed by secularists and feared by the faithful, read History for Atheists' in-depth review, which demonstrates with meticulous detail that "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."
Pop history to be forgotten in five years, two if we're lucky.
Roberts' bias is quite astonishing. Is the book exciting? It definitely reads like a BBC documentary script (and I'm sure we'll get that soon enough). But is it good? Not really. If this is historiography, then The God Delusion was philosophy.
Lengthy discussion here.
Early Christianity, the fall of the Roman empire, theology, biblical literature and languages—these topics are far from Roberts' own academic background. This is further proven by how poor her general research is. I would like to see the full bibliography though, as the selected references provided are pitiful and point to a gap between the data and her conclusions. Then, the rhetoric is tainted by a smug secularism unwarranted in scholarship.
It's hard to understand how something like this is published. Well... I guess it isn't. Once an author provides reliable sales, they get to write whatever. The skeleton is Gibbon, and Roberts adds little new apart from some archaeological finds. But the message of the book isn't actually built on any newly "unveiled secrets" (Roberts' words). The archaeology is merely window dressing for her prejudicial sermon; the disconnect between these finds and her conclusions about early Christianity (going back to the apostles) is ridiculous, and I don't think anyone really takes her seriously...
Before anyone concludes that Roberts' book is welcomed by secularists and feared by the faithful, read History for Atheists' in-depth review, which demonstrates with meticulous detail that "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."
Pop history to be forgotten in five years, two if we're lucky.
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.
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?
September 25, 2025
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.
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.
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 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.
October 14, 2025
4+. Wonderful look at how Christianity used economics and the Roman Empire to spread.
January 24, 2026
Found it hard work
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.
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.
September 11, 2025
Alice Roberts is an intelligent person and every field of human inquiry including - especially - history should welcome newcomers, heretics and sceptics. Thus, an attempt at a new take on a well studied phenomenon is to be encouraged, and some of the snipes she has received (putting 'Professor' on the title page, the fact she is a newcomer, whatever else) are not relevant. She is clearly capable of providing a refreshing take on whatever subject to which she turns her mind.
Equally, however, it behoves anyone writing a history book to research the archives thoroughly and at least acknowledge other scholars in the field if you have drawn upon their work or are implicitly criticising them. Roberts has fallen somewhat short in this respect. She clearly digs at Tom Holland's similar Dominion without clearly referencing his work. Worse, she has but a single mention of Peter Brown, a scholar of immense erudition and skill whose life's work has been in this field. It is at least theoretically possible a comparative newcomer to this field could overturn or surpass Brown's own work in some way, but Roberts has not even begun to do so - or attempted it, if we are to infer from her bibliography she hasn't even read him. It would be like a Tudor historian pretending Geoffrey Elton never existed, or a D-Day author to ignore the work of Peter Caddick-Adams and Stephen Fisher combined (and if D-Day's archive spanned centuries not years). The rise of TV historians writing highly publicised "new" accounts where much more in depth scholars have covered the subject for years is rather tiresome. I recall being particularly annoyed that for the centenary commemorations about the Great War the BBC had a book written by Jeremy Paxman - good quiz host, but an absolute nobody in Great War scholarship.
This is still more of a problem for Roberts' book given the ambitious scope and the hyperbole in the blurb "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. (...) Lifting the veil on secrets that have been hidden in plain sight, this story is nothing short of astonishing."
I don't think she has lifted too many secrets, she has given a good narrative account, but this is not going to rewrite the history of late antiquity or the rise of Christianity. That would be much less of a criticism if she, and her publishers, had not tried to claim so much for the book.
* Note: Roberts has received some criticism for putting her Professor title on the front cover. I don't agree with that criticism in general; she earned the title and so why shouldn't she use it. The only difficulty in this context is that she did not earn her doctorate in the subject matter of this book, so it suggests and authority she does not really possess. But that's a minor point; the substance is what matters.
Equally, however, it behoves anyone writing a history book to research the archives thoroughly and at least acknowledge other scholars in the field if you have drawn upon their work or are implicitly criticising them. Roberts has fallen somewhat short in this respect. She clearly digs at Tom Holland's similar Dominion without clearly referencing his work. Worse, she has but a single mention of Peter Brown, a scholar of immense erudition and skill whose life's work has been in this field. It is at least theoretically possible a comparative newcomer to this field could overturn or surpass Brown's own work in some way, but Roberts has not even begun to do so - or attempted it, if we are to infer from her bibliography she hasn't even read him. It would be like a Tudor historian pretending Geoffrey Elton never existed, or a D-Day author to ignore the work of Peter Caddick-Adams and Stephen Fisher combined (and if D-Day's archive spanned centuries not years). The rise of TV historians writing highly publicised "new" accounts where much more in depth scholars have covered the subject for years is rather tiresome. I recall being particularly annoyed that for the centenary commemorations about the Great War the BBC had a book written by Jeremy Paxman - good quiz host, but an absolute nobody in Great War scholarship.
This is still more of a problem for Roberts' book given the ambitious scope and the hyperbole in the blurb "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. (...) Lifting the veil on secrets that have been hidden in plain sight, this story is nothing short of astonishing."
I don't think she has lifted too many secrets, she has given a good narrative account, but this is not going to rewrite the history of late antiquity or the rise of Christianity. That would be much less of a criticism if she, and her publishers, had not tried to claim so much for the book.
* Note: Roberts has received some criticism for putting her Professor title on the front cover. I don't agree with that criticism in general; she earned the title and so why shouldn't she use it. The only difficulty in this context is that she did not earn her doctorate in the subject matter of this book, so it suggests and authority she does not really possess. But that's a minor point; the substance is what matters.
January 13, 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 Christinaity 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 ocmmentary 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 Christinaity 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 Christinaity 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 ocmmentary 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 Christinaity 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.
Review of advance copy received from Publisher
I have so much admiration and respect for Professor Alice Roberts, but where she excels at evoking the texture of the late Roman world and voyages made by Saints, she also overwhelms with names and information. Parts of the book felt dull and bothersome to me and it definitely wasn’t the usual archaeological wonder that drew me to her in the first place. Christianity was a product of the cultural and social mileu of Late Antiquity- so there’s a lot to uncover I suppose.
While Domination is clearly driven by Roberts’ desire to interrogate the roots of Western power structures, this contemporary lens can occasionally feel imposed rather than organically arising from the material. However I did find a great deal of the book fascinating and Christianity’s conception is something to marvel at.
Christianity swept through the Eastern Mediterranean and Roman Empire during the second and third century AD, and seeped into the fractures of Roman authority. It was something of importance, a vital lifeline. Domination wearing different clothes. First it was a whisper among the poor and persecuted, then it became a rising tide that reshaped the moral and political landscape of the ancient world.
The great surge of Christianity came in the third century. People were attracted by the concept and promise of life after death, when life itself heaped misery on them. It became a community. Steering lost souls away from the clutch of “Greek vanity”. Almsgiving made people feel good about themselves, people like Saint Paul rose up and gave it life. I thought this was so interesting, looking at the social influence of this new movement, and how quickly people adopted it.
Domination invites us to reflect on how worlds end and begin, how old gods fade and new certainties rise. It has the power to show us how historically the echoes of Rome and early Christianity still shape the moral architecture of our modern lives.
While Domination is clearly driven by Roberts’ desire to interrogate the roots of Western power structures, this contemporary lens can occasionally feel imposed rather than organically arising from the material. However I did find a great deal of the book fascinating and Christianity’s conception is something to marvel at.
Christianity swept through the Eastern Mediterranean and Roman Empire during the second and third century AD, and seeped into the fractures of Roman authority. It was something of importance, a vital lifeline. Domination wearing different clothes. First it was a whisper among the poor and persecuted, then it became a rising tide that reshaped the moral and political landscape of the ancient world.
The great surge of Christianity came in the third century. People were attracted by the concept and promise of life after death, when life itself heaped misery on them. It became a community. Steering lost souls away from the clutch of “Greek vanity”. Almsgiving made people feel good about themselves, people like Saint Paul rose up and gave it life. I thought this was so interesting, looking at the social influence of this new movement, and how quickly people adopted it.
Domination invites us to reflect on how worlds end and begin, how old gods fade and new certainties rise. It has the power to show us how historically the echoes of Rome and early Christianity still shape the moral architecture of our modern lives.
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.
January 8, 2026
Archaeology cuts through millennia of propaganda.
Alice Roberts begins this exploration of the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of Christianity in a trench in the Vale of Glamorgan. She shines a spotlight on one chapel there and looks at the change of power from the Romans to the coming of the Christian church. By the end of the book, her focus has widened to include the creation of the Nicene Creed and the importance of the city of Alexandria to the early church, among other fascinating subjects.
Throughout, Roberts is at pains to make it clear that although she sometimes uses the phrase ‘the coming of Christianity’, it wasn’t the mass of Christianity moving across Europe, but rather it was an idea carried by people. People who were often already powerful. It was not unusual for the descendant of a Roman governor to become the local bishop. Whilst the hagiographies and historical record indicates a break and shift in the movement of power from Rome to religion, the archaeological record cuts through that centuries old propaganda by looking at the physical evidence. This is a field that Roberts is an expert in, and her clear, authoritative handling of the evidence leaves the reader with a lot to think about.
Robert’s book is brilliant, all-encompassing, and thought-provoking.
Thank you to the publisher for a review copy of this book.
Alice Roberts begins this exploration of the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of Christianity in a trench in the Vale of Glamorgan. She shines a spotlight on one chapel there and looks at the change of power from the Romans to the coming of the Christian church. By the end of the book, her focus has widened to include the creation of the Nicene Creed and the importance of the city of Alexandria to the early church, among other fascinating subjects.
Throughout, Roberts is at pains to make it clear that although she sometimes uses the phrase ‘the coming of Christianity’, it wasn’t the mass of Christianity moving across Europe, but rather it was an idea carried by people. People who were often already powerful. It was not unusual for the descendant of a Roman governor to become the local bishop. Whilst the hagiographies and historical record indicates a break and shift in the movement of power from Rome to religion, the archaeological record cuts through that centuries old propaganda by looking at the physical evidence. This is a field that Roberts is an expert in, and her clear, authoritative handling of the evidence leaves the reader with a lot to think about.
Robert’s book is brilliant, all-encompassing, and thought-provoking.
Thank you to the publisher for a review copy of this book.
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.
August 27, 2025
Domination is a story of how a tiny cult within the Roman empire came to be the powerful force called Christianity. Alice Roberts’ take is less about theology, and more about power and wealth. The focus is on the first few centuries: the formative events and people that witnessed the slow decline of an empire and the establishment of a new religion.
Her central thesis is that the path was an evolution in which some Romans (mostly elites and middle classes) brought their traditions and hierarchies into the Church. Eventually, she argues, the two became one, as much of Rome's wealth and power was inherited by the Church.
Professor Roberts is meticulous with her sources and, though not everyone will agree with her synthesis, provides a credible argument. Her style is approachable and she understands where the reader might need help to explain complex or nuanced concepts. Her personal journey of discovery (historical rather than spiritual) complements the fascinating accounts of the people who lived in those tumultuous times.
See the full review at: https://www.queenslandreviewerscollec...
Her central thesis is that the path was an evolution in which some Romans (mostly elites and middle classes) brought their traditions and hierarchies into the Church. Eventually, she argues, the two became one, as much of Rome's wealth and power was inherited by the Church.
Professor Roberts is meticulous with her sources and, though not everyone will agree with her synthesis, provides a credible argument. Her style is approachable and she understands where the reader might need help to explain complex or nuanced concepts. Her personal journey of discovery (historical rather than spiritual) complements the fascinating accounts of the people who lived in those tumultuous times.
See the full review at: https://www.queenslandreviewerscollec...
February 14, 2026
I entered this book with limited knowledge of the subject matter and feel a bit more enlightened. Not sure how to rate it because I don’t know what to compare it to. I enjoyed learning about Constantine and the way of life back then. But I felt the author brought too much bias into the assumptions about people’s motivations for joining the Church. She made it seem like people only had ulterior motives for being Christian, which completely ignores the fact that people can do things without expecting anything in return. Apparently charity is only a means to promote social status and virtue. And she couches these types of statements by saying she wants to avoid generalizations, then continues to make these very general assumptions. Anyway, the book definitely ignited an interest in learning more about the time period, Roman history, and books on religion.
Thanks to Libro.fm and Simon & Schuster UK for the ALC.
Thanks to Libro.fm and Simon & Schuster UK for the ALC.
December 3, 2025
Sorry to say so but this is not up to the Alice Roberts' standards. Longwinded, iterating the same things over and over and at some places rather boring. The book needs some careful editing, too many grammatical and stylistic faults have passed. I also needs a detailed bibliography, not the farcical list of sources it has now.
The basic idea is valid, though. Christianity has gradually replaced the power structures of the ailing Roman Empire. It has done so through the status and wealth-seeking actions of individual men. And a continuity of values from Roman culture into Christianity is an important insight. Pity Roberts wrote in a hurry - pressure from the publisher to reach a contractual goal?
The basic idea is valid, though. Christianity has gradually replaced the power structures of the ailing Roman Empire. It has done so through the status and wealth-seeking actions of individual men. And a continuity of values from Roman culture into Christianity is an important insight. Pity Roberts wrote in a hurry - pressure from the publisher to reach a contractual goal?
December 8, 2025
I have watched dr. Roberts’ TV shows and always liked her clear presentations. So it is with some anticipation that I started reading this book I found in my local bookstore. To say that I was disappointed would be an understatement. I found the exposition particularly muddled (for example, she mixes up the Western and the Eastern Roman Empires in the 5th – 6th century CE) and the text extremely repetitive (why does she find it necessary to explain in every other page what foederati were?). Halfway through it was not clear to me what the argument of the book is. The frequent gratuitous antireligious jabs are not helping either (let there be no misunderstanding: I am an atheist). All in all, I gave up halfway after about 100 pages, rating the book (generously) 2 stars.
January 1, 2026
Roberts central argument seems to be that Christianity in its early days was essentially only for the middle and elite classes who effectively adopted it in order to hold offices within it that maintained their status from within the Roman Empire. Eventually Christianity and Empire became effectively identical though the Church survived the break up of the Empire. One of the interesting points she makes is that it was necessary for the Church to have a significant poor population in order to be seen as their saviours and to hold out the prospect of salvation to those who provided it with the means to provide for the poor. I have long thought that the Church is a scam and nothing here has altered that view
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.
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.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 58 reviews