What do you think?
Rate this book
History of the Ancient World
The Triumph of Empire: The Roman World from Hadrian to Constantine
“A genuinely bracing and innovative history of Rome.”
― Times Literary Supplement
The Triumph of Empire takes us into the political heart of imperial Rome and recounts the extraordinary challenges overcome by a flourishing empire. Roman politics could resemble a blood rivals resorted to assassination as emperors rose and fell with bewildering speed, their reigns sometimes measured in weeks. Factionalism and intrigue sapped the empire from within, and imperial succession was never entirely assured.
Michael Kulikowski begins with the reign of Hadrian, who visited the farthest reaches of his domain and created a stable frontier, and takes us through the rules of Marcus Aurelius and Diocletian to Constantine, who overhauled the government, introduced a new state religion, and founded a second Rome. Despite Rome’s political volatility, imperial forces managed to defeat successive attacks from Goths, Germans, Persians, and Parthians.
“This is a wonderfully broad sweep of Roman history. It tells the fascinating story of imperial rule from the enigmatic Hadrian through the dozens of warlords and usurpers who fought for the throne in the third century AD to the Christian emperors of the fourth―after the biggest religious and cultural revolution the world has ever seen.”
―Mary Beard, author of SPQR
“This was an era of great change, and Kulikowski is an excellent and insightful guide.”
―Adrian Goldsworthy, Wall Street Journal
― Times Literary Supplement
The Triumph of Empire takes us into the political heart of imperial Rome and recounts the extraordinary challenges overcome by a flourishing empire. Roman politics could resemble a blood rivals resorted to assassination as emperors rose and fell with bewildering speed, their reigns sometimes measured in weeks. Factionalism and intrigue sapped the empire from within, and imperial succession was never entirely assured.
Michael Kulikowski begins with the reign of Hadrian, who visited the farthest reaches of his domain and created a stable frontier, and takes us through the rules of Marcus Aurelius and Diocletian to Constantine, who overhauled the government, introduced a new state religion, and founded a second Rome. Despite Rome’s political volatility, imperial forces managed to defeat successive attacks from Goths, Germans, Persians, and Parthians.
“This is a wonderfully broad sweep of Roman history. It tells the fascinating story of imperial rule from the enigmatic Hadrian through the dozens of warlords and usurpers who fought for the throne in the third century AD to the Christian emperors of the fourth―after the biggest religious and cultural revolution the world has ever seen.”
―Mary Beard, author of SPQR
“This was an era of great change, and Kulikowski is an excellent and insightful guide.”
―Adrian Goldsworthy, Wall Street Journal
400 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2016
33 people are currently reading
699 people want to read
About the author
Michael Kulikowski
18 books21 followersMichael Kulikowski is the author of Rome’s Gothic Wars, Late Roman Spain and Its Cities, and The Triumph of Empire. Kulikowski has appeared in a number of documentaries on the History Channel, including Barbarians Rising, Rome, and Criminal History: Rome, and writes frequently for the Wall Street Journal and London Review of Books. He is the Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of History and Classics at Pennsylvania State University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
February 5, 2017
When I ordered this I expected a pop-history book, without really high quality scholarship, so the quality of research was a very pleasant surprise.
A very significant majority of the book is concerned with the 3rd century which is the least well documented era for the Roman Empire and a bit of blank spot in my knowledge, so this book hit the spot for me content-wise.
The pros for me are the subject matter and the evident knowledge and research by the author. If you are interested in the 3rd century I would 100% recommend this book, without reservation.
That said, I would like to be critical of a few things. Oftentimes the author interrupts his scholarly tone with a colloquialism, in an attempt to inject the type of British-esque dry humor you would normally find in history books written 50 years ago. It strikes me as really out of place. Not so much because I'm a snob but more so that the book is definitely NOT a pop history book and 99% of the time is written with in a scholarly tone so that the non-scholarly stuff sticks out more. Again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing but I feel like it disrupts the flow of the narrative. This is almost certain a sign of poor editing.
A second criticism is that the author slips a bit from the rigor of his criticism when discussing Constantine and Constantius. It's clear his personal sympathies lie with them, for reasons I can only conjecture. As a consequence, he minimizes Diocletian's reign and vilifies Julian. The anti-pagan pro-christian feeling is a bit inescapable. I think for the early 4th century the author lowers his guard a bit and gives into his biases. This wouldn't be quite so obvious if the author hadn't set the bar so high for himself in the first 80% of the book.
A very significant majority of the book is concerned with the 3rd century which is the least well documented era for the Roman Empire and a bit of blank spot in my knowledge, so this book hit the spot for me content-wise.
The pros for me are the subject matter and the evident knowledge and research by the author. If you are interested in the 3rd century I would 100% recommend this book, without reservation.
That said, I would like to be critical of a few things. Oftentimes the author interrupts his scholarly tone with a colloquialism, in an attempt to inject the type of British-esque dry humor you would normally find in history books written 50 years ago. It strikes me as really out of place. Not so much because I'm a snob but more so that the book is definitely NOT a pop history book and 99% of the time is written with in a scholarly tone so that the non-scholarly stuff sticks out more. Again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing but I feel like it disrupts the flow of the narrative. This is almost certain a sign of poor editing.
A second criticism is that the author slips a bit from the rigor of his criticism when discussing Constantine and Constantius. It's clear his personal sympathies lie with them, for reasons I can only conjecture. As a consequence, he minimizes Diocletian's reign and vilifies Julian. The anti-pagan pro-christian feeling is a bit inescapable. I think for the early 4th century the author lowers his guard a bit and gives into his biases. This wouldn't be quite so obvious if the author hadn't set the bar so high for himself in the first 80% of the book.
July 6, 2017
This book covers a period of Roman history that is often ignored, especially in popular culture. But the late Empire is the bridge from the classical world of pagan religion and unquestioned Roman hegemony to the Christian Middle Ages and the early emergence of the individual (European/Middle Eastern/northern African) national identities that we live with today. As such, it has an arguably greater claim to contemporary attention the preceding periods that we know so well (or, at least, that we think we do). I picked up this book, excited to fill in some of the many gaps in my knowledge of the ancient Mediterranean. Kulikowski does not disappoint, as far as knowledge and erudition go. However, I did find the book lacking in the style department, and in such a way that I'm not really sure who this book is intended for. It has none of the readability of a good popular history (your Mary Beards and Thomas Cahills) but is less rigorously annotated and substantiated than the average, purely academic monograph. As a result, as much as I'm glad to have picked up and read it through, I'm not sure I would recommend it to others. But then, having never read any other books on this period, I need to see what else is out there before I can say for sure.
January 13, 2017
In a world filled with books on either the rise or fall of the Roman Empire, one book dares summarize to us what the hell happened in between.
The author's overall argument seems to be that as time went on, fewer and fewer emperors came from Rome, and in fact Italy itself. eventually, the empire comes to be ruled by "hyphenated" Romans from the provinces, and the traditional senatorial families of the city of Rome become irrelevant as the empire becomes more ethnically (not culturally) diverse, and lower equestrian classes start rising to the fore, bearing many emperors of their own. his argument proved to be very convincing throughout, and it is safe to say he succeeded.
You could easily write some very large books about many of the individual emperors covered here, so the challenge for the author was relaying the importance of each emperor within 300 or so pages while keeping the reader entertained, a feat which he accomplished exceptionally well.. until the later chapters.
from the 3rd century onwards when Christianity becomes a factor, the author dramatically downplays the importance of very critical emperors(Diocletian) while inflating the competence and importance of others(Constantine/his son). While there is no doubt that Constantine played a substantial role, Diocletian saved the empire from complete destruction and implemented revolutionary reforms, yet the author lingers heavily on his Christian persecutions and pays dramatically less attention to him as opposed to Constantine and Constantius, who together have several chapters to themselves.
aside from the obvious bias in the last few chapters however, it was an exceptionally good and informative read. I would recommend it mainly to readers trying to get a general sense of the empire in its midst. It also really helped me to cement my memory when it came to the order in which emperors ruled. I certainly do not regret reading it.
The author's overall argument seems to be that as time went on, fewer and fewer emperors came from Rome, and in fact Italy itself. eventually, the empire comes to be ruled by "hyphenated" Romans from the provinces, and the traditional senatorial families of the city of Rome become irrelevant as the empire becomes more ethnically (not culturally) diverse, and lower equestrian classes start rising to the fore, bearing many emperors of their own. his argument proved to be very convincing throughout, and it is safe to say he succeeded.
You could easily write some very large books about many of the individual emperors covered here, so the challenge for the author was relaying the importance of each emperor within 300 or so pages while keeping the reader entertained, a feat which he accomplished exceptionally well.. until the later chapters.
from the 3rd century onwards when Christianity becomes a factor, the author dramatically downplays the importance of very critical emperors(Diocletian) while inflating the competence and importance of others(Constantine/his son). While there is no doubt that Constantine played a substantial role, Diocletian saved the empire from complete destruction and implemented revolutionary reforms, yet the author lingers heavily on his Christian persecutions and pays dramatically less attention to him as opposed to Constantine and Constantius, who together have several chapters to themselves.
aside from the obvious bias in the last few chapters however, it was an exceptionally good and informative read. I would recommend it mainly to readers trying to get a general sense of the empire in its midst. It also really helped me to cement my memory when it came to the order in which emperors ruled. I certainly do not regret reading it.
May 25, 2020
Il voto al libro è un netto 5/5 per i motivi che spiegherò ed è consigliatissimo.
Pessima invece la traduzione, che si merita tranquillamente un due o un uno. L'italiano è zoppicante. Alcuni tempi verbali (trapassato remoto) e modi (congiuntivi) sono stati quasi totalmente ignorati. Certe frasi sono illeggibili e non poche volte pregiudicano anche la comprensione del testo. E' inaccettabile, punto.
Passiamo al libro. I punti di forza sono tre.
1) l'impostazione narrativa, cioè è una storia "classica" dell'impero da Adriano a Giuliano, in cui ci si concentra in primis sui fatti (politici, militari, dinastici). Non è una storia sociale ed economica che, per quanto più moderne come impostazione, sono anche più noiosette (e spesso fumose).
2) l'attenzione rivolta alla Partia/Persia e agli eventi euroasiatici. La storia romana, dopo il II secolo, venne influenzata dagli eventi della steppa, di cui i Romani sapevano pochissimo. Interessantissima la parte sulla storia religiosa della Persia.
3) l'attenzione alla storia sociale. Ho detto che il libro non è impostato come una storia sociale, non che questa sia assente. Al contrario, proprio questa parte costituisce il maggior motivo di interesse del libro. L'autore legge spesso la storia romana alla luce dell'evoluzione delle élite al potere. Dal II secolo, in cui comandava una piccolissima élite senatoria di qualche migliaio di uomini proveniente per lo più dall'Italia e dalle province occidentali romanizzate, si passa ad un III secolo in cui il processo di "equestrizzazione" si intensifica fino a creare, nel IV secolo, un impero del tutto nuovo, più universale, onnicomprensivo e burocratico.
Paradossalmente, noi consideriamo "migliore" l'impero degli Antonini del II secolo, in cui erano la nascita e non il merito a determinare la fortuna di una persona, e non quello del IV secolo, in cui la crisi e i cambiamenti avevano aperto le porte del potere a chiunque sulla base del merito. Nel II secolo solo i senatori potevano essere imperatori; nel IV, chiunque, romano o barbaro, nobile o povero, fosse abbastanza abile da scalare la gerarchia militare.
Il punto di visto nuovo, insomma, costituisce il maggior interesse del libro che, quindi, consiglio caldamente se già avete una profonda conoscenza di storia imperiale romana e non vi irritano le molti frasi zoppicanti che leggerete.
Pessima invece la traduzione, che si merita tranquillamente un due o un uno. L'italiano è zoppicante. Alcuni tempi verbali (trapassato remoto) e modi (congiuntivi) sono stati quasi totalmente ignorati. Certe frasi sono illeggibili e non poche volte pregiudicano anche la comprensione del testo. E' inaccettabile, punto.
Passiamo al libro. I punti di forza sono tre.
1) l'impostazione narrativa, cioè è una storia "classica" dell'impero da Adriano a Giuliano, in cui ci si concentra in primis sui fatti (politici, militari, dinastici). Non è una storia sociale ed economica che, per quanto più moderne come impostazione, sono anche più noiosette (e spesso fumose).
2) l'attenzione rivolta alla Partia/Persia e agli eventi euroasiatici. La storia romana, dopo il II secolo, venne influenzata dagli eventi della steppa, di cui i Romani sapevano pochissimo. Interessantissima la parte sulla storia religiosa della Persia.
3) l'attenzione alla storia sociale. Ho detto che il libro non è impostato come una storia sociale, non che questa sia assente. Al contrario, proprio questa parte costituisce il maggior motivo di interesse del libro. L'autore legge spesso la storia romana alla luce dell'evoluzione delle élite al potere. Dal II secolo, in cui comandava una piccolissima élite senatoria di qualche migliaio di uomini proveniente per lo più dall'Italia e dalle province occidentali romanizzate, si passa ad un III secolo in cui il processo di "equestrizzazione" si intensifica fino a creare, nel IV secolo, un impero del tutto nuovo, più universale, onnicomprensivo e burocratico.
Paradossalmente, noi consideriamo "migliore" l'impero degli Antonini del II secolo, in cui erano la nascita e non il merito a determinare la fortuna di una persona, e non quello del IV secolo, in cui la crisi e i cambiamenti avevano aperto le porte del potere a chiunque sulla base del merito. Nel II secolo solo i senatori potevano essere imperatori; nel IV, chiunque, romano o barbaro, nobile o povero, fosse abbastanza abile da scalare la gerarchia militare.
Il punto di visto nuovo, insomma, costituisce il maggior interesse del libro che, quindi, consiglio caldamente se già avete una profonda conoscenza di storia imperiale romana e non vi irritano le molti frasi zoppicanti che leggerete.
March 27, 2024
This book is a narrative slog through the Roman Empire, focusing on high-level (emperor-level) political and foreign policy events, written without much color or flair. The main problem is that there is no theme or thesis, but rather a dry chronology of events, with long names that even the author self-referentially says must be confusing (he’s right).
It seems to be written for historians, but without extensive footnotes. The lack of footnotes, in turn, would suggest that it was intended for a lay audience, but it’s written in an academic style. Some of his sentences tend to go on forever; I read one that was 12 lines long.
There are some good, if unsourced, bits, like a solid chapter on Parthia/Persia, and much use of numismatic evidence, though without much in the way of accompanying pictures. There are plenty of good maps, which do help, but they are scattered about, making them hard to find. For example, a map of Italy occurs as late as page 232.
I’ve read many histories of many periods, but this, sadly, falls to the bottom of that long list, and it is ultimately forgettable. While Kulikowski knows his facts, he is unable to pull them into some sort of story or higher meaning here.
Civil wars, border wars, political murders, and interpersonal relationships flash by without adding much color. In an era where so much happened, it falls into that worst kind of historical writing: a dull, lifeless recitation of mind-numbing facts.
The book did have one breakthrough moment, and a potentially lasting effect, for me: it was a prime example of the “sunk cost fallacy.” I don’t need to continue books that provide me no value, and I’m better off setting it aside and starting something new and possibly better.
It seems to be written for historians, but without extensive footnotes. The lack of footnotes, in turn, would suggest that it was intended for a lay audience, but it’s written in an academic style. Some of his sentences tend to go on forever; I read one that was 12 lines long.
There are some good, if unsourced, bits, like a solid chapter on Parthia/Persia, and much use of numismatic evidence, though without much in the way of accompanying pictures. There are plenty of good maps, which do help, but they are scattered about, making them hard to find. For example, a map of Italy occurs as late as page 232.
I’ve read many histories of many periods, but this, sadly, falls to the bottom of that long list, and it is ultimately forgettable. While Kulikowski knows his facts, he is unable to pull them into some sort of story or higher meaning here.
Civil wars, border wars, political murders, and interpersonal relationships flash by without adding much color. In an era where so much happened, it falls into that worst kind of historical writing: a dull, lifeless recitation of mind-numbing facts.
The book did have one breakthrough moment, and a potentially lasting effect, for me: it was a prime example of the “sunk cost fallacy.” I don’t need to continue books that provide me no value, and I’m better off setting it aside and starting something new and possibly better.
July 3, 2017
A nice survey of a period of Roman history which is often neglected--indeed, I had never read a volume dedicated to the age of the Barracks Emperors. The book reads well, and it is probably not the author's fault if all the names of the usurpers become a blur after a while.
December 8, 2023
"The Triumph of Empire" is an excellent summary overview of the history of the Roman empire from the 110s to the 360s. Covering mostly the politics of the emperors, the book also devotes some space to the wider geopolitics of the period, especially Rome's relationship to Persia, but also the effect of the steppes peoples and even connections to China. A well-written book that helps you to better understand the evolution of the Roman empire from its earlier days to the later period.
December 20, 2017
My review available here: http://www.bmcreview.org/2017/06/2017...
Interview with the author available here: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-...
Interview with the author available here: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-...
September 18, 2017
This was an excellent history of the later Roman empire, covering from Hadrian to Constantine's sons, and including the Severan dynasty and the "Third Century Crisis." Most histories of Rome focus on the late Republic and early empire, so this a very useful addition to the available books. He provides rigorous history, explaining many of the problems of sources from this period, and presenting some of the latest thinking on the subject. It is a respectable textbook for academic use, but is also very digestible for the general reader. I was impressed with his coverage of the 3rd century, which is particularly scarce for sources - he faced the challenge admirably, though it still sometimes reads as a slightly bewildering list of emperors (there is coup after coup), and I wondered if he could have made greater use of material evidence beyond coins. The other weakness is that it's very much a political history, focusing on the rulers of the empire and the structures supporting them, when I would have been interested in more insight into the social history. He explains the changes of the structure of the Roman empire very well (it's a central theme), showing how power moved from the senatorial class to the equestrian class (notably under the Severans), and how this played a part in the flood of coups, and why the bureaucracy of the empire increased with it. He also did an excellent job relating changes with the Roman empire to its neighbours, particularly the Persians, but also the "Goths" and the tribes of the steppes. I was interested to read that there was a Roman garrison at the southern end of the Red Sea, to protect trade routes to India - the extent of contacts and interconnectedness was remarkable.
November 3, 2021
A little dry for the leisure reader... unless you really want to know the facts and the dizzying number of men who decided to reach for the stars. When we think of the lure of fame today - the proliferation of reality TV and the crowded slum existence of some 'wannabe' film stars in LA, we can be forgiven for thinking this is a new phenomenon, simply as why would humans keep flogging a dead horse. Granted, today the fate of the loser isn't quite the severity of death, but we still strive to be the 'heavyweight champion of the world', despite history telling us that only a very few win, and even fewer win for any length of time. Think Gareth Gates... But we all remember and know of Will Young, who came 2nd there, don't we?!!
The politics of Rome was so similar to such contests, yet with richer contestants and more deadly risks.
This book doesn't really only deal with emperors, though their names are those we know, we know few of the other players and close to nothing about the normal man or his life. Here we read the fortunes of men, the evolvement of politics, the reality of war, the brutality of religion, the lure of power - these are the tenets of empire concentrated on successfully. Sure, it can be a little muddy for the layman reader, and possibly not as interesting to some, but it's one of the best sources of knowledge and analysis of Roman mid-empire political evolution I've read, and though I read it for enjoyment, I could use this for an essay on that and find enough to supplement any other sources. I miss essays! I feel like a fool, but I so loved this and now know more than I did before reading!
The politics of Rome was so similar to such contests, yet with richer contestants and more deadly risks.
This book doesn't really only deal with emperors, though their names are those we know, we know few of the other players and close to nothing about the normal man or his life. Here we read the fortunes of men, the evolvement of politics, the reality of war, the brutality of religion, the lure of power - these are the tenets of empire concentrated on successfully. Sure, it can be a little muddy for the layman reader, and possibly not as interesting to some, but it's one of the best sources of knowledge and analysis of Roman mid-empire political evolution I've read, and though I read it for enjoyment, I could use this for an essay on that and find enough to supplement any other sources. I miss essays! I feel like a fool, but I so loved this and now know more than I did before reading!
July 3, 2025
Overall this was a good read, making sense of a chaotic and sparsely documented era of the Roman Empire. Kulikowski rested everything on research, and resisted any urges to infer or guess at motives or actions that we cannot attest to. That being said, writing a history is a balancing act between sources/fact and the providing color/context/story to the period, so a reader gets an actual feel for the period & can theorize on motivations. Here I think Kulikowski falls behind, sometimes moving in bare-bones: he went to this city, then sources said he went to this city, then sources say he went to this city..
The book is at both its best and worst when covering the thematic concepts. The rise of christianity, the equestrian class + provincial citizenship, and the Sassanian Empire all come together to paint a comprehensive story on why the Roman Empire advanced from an Empire governed by Rome to an Empire filled with "Romans", and the beginnings of an eastward focus. Even here, he can get redudant devoting full chapters to the various beuqacratic offices an equestrian could hold rather than discussing what that meant, and citing these various offices as proof.
All being said stylistically not my favorite, but provided exactly the period, context, and facts needed. This period has very little coverage, so appreciate any solid historical work connecting the Emprie from Hadrian to Constantine.
The book is at both its best and worst when covering the thematic concepts. The rise of christianity, the equestrian class + provincial citizenship, and the Sassanian Empire all come together to paint a comprehensive story on why the Roman Empire advanced from an Empire governed by Rome to an Empire filled with "Romans", and the beginnings of an eastward focus. Even here, he can get redudant devoting full chapters to the various beuqacratic offices an equestrian could hold rather than discussing what that meant, and citing these various offices as proof.
All being said stylistically not my favorite, but provided exactly the period, context, and facts needed. This period has very little coverage, so appreciate any solid historical work connecting the Emprie from Hadrian to Constantine.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 27, 2022
Fantastic in-depth discussion of the High Empire, going into detail of not just the antics of the (many) emperors and their dramarific families, but also into the statesmen, generals, bureaucrats, officials and religious leaders that drove the machinery of the state. It is amazing how much the empire transformed over the course of this book's narrative, but Kulikowski explores it with lucid detail, heaps of context (such as the changes across Persia and the rest of Eurasia that had ripple effects for the Roman Empire) and a clear sense of amazement himself. I was repeatedly impressed.
I particularly enjoyed his often cynical take on a lot of the emperors' actions (and justifications for their actions), making it clear how the modern historian tries to interpret these events, and how he clearly always tried to back up his statements with evidence (being explicitly vague if that wasn't possible). Highly recommended for someone looking for an in-depth understanding of the High Imperial period, that pulls no punches on depth and detail.
I look forward to reading the next volume in this series.
I particularly enjoyed his often cynical take on a lot of the emperors' actions (and justifications for their actions), making it clear how the modern historian tries to interpret these events, and how he clearly always tried to back up his statements with evidence (being explicitly vague if that wasn't possible). Highly recommended for someone looking for an in-depth understanding of the High Imperial period, that pulls no punches on depth and detail.
I look forward to reading the next volume in this series.
September 24, 2021
Excelente introducción a la historia del imperio romano tardío (de Trajano a Julián).
Kulikowski narra muy bien la crisis del siglo III, enfatizando los cambios institucionales que ocurrieron y que hacen al imperio de Constantino uno muy diferente al de Marco Aurelio. En particular, enfatiza el cambio que ocurrió en la estructura del gobierno imperial y como esta no sólo creció en términos numéricos sino que también dejó de ser una estructura ocupada primordialmente por la clase senatorial a ser una de funcionarios profesionales.
Como toda libro que aborda un periodo largo, el libro por momentos cae en listados de nombres y lugares, tratando de hilar los acontecimientos. Sin embargo, la pluma de Kulikowski es lo bastante ligera como para que no se resientan las 300 páginas del libro.
Kulikowski narra muy bien la crisis del siglo III, enfatizando los cambios institucionales que ocurrieron y que hacen al imperio de Constantino uno muy diferente al de Marco Aurelio. En particular, enfatiza el cambio que ocurrió en la estructura del gobierno imperial y como esta no sólo creció en términos numéricos sino que también dejó de ser una estructura ocupada primordialmente por la clase senatorial a ser una de funcionarios profesionales.
Como toda libro que aborda un periodo largo, el libro por momentos cae en listados de nombres y lugares, tratando de hilar los acontecimientos. Sin embargo, la pluma de Kulikowski es lo bastante ligera como para que no se resientan las 300 páginas del libro.
August 28, 2024
4.5 stars. What an in-depth look at some fascinating emperors. There are a lot of details and names in this book, which can get overwhelming. There were also some moments of insight for me. The breadth of resources the author referenced is fascinating and a resource on its own. The Further Reading section is extensive. Not a first or second book on Rome I'd say, but I do recommend it if you want what seem to me minute details about this period of Roman history.
Wikipedia has a entry called "List of Roman Emperors" which is a chart containing basic info about each emperor. In retrospect, this was essential for me to keep track of all the emperor's names, dates, family affiliations, etc.
Wikipedia has a entry called "List of Roman Emperors" which is a chart containing basic info about each emperor. In retrospect, this was essential for me to keep track of all the emperor's names, dates, family affiliations, etc.
December 11, 2018
Closer to a work of scholarship than pop-history, it can feel a little too factual. But, from all the "this person went there," "told the army to go there," "paid the army with this," "appeased the senators with this," you do get a picture of why things did not stay rosy forever, and maybe what the world was like back then. But, it is a pretty high level of overview, the years pass by faster than the pages, and getting into the psychology or motives of any individual ruler is something you can't get from this book. The interesting-ness is also at the mercy of how peculiar each individual ruler was, some are very boring.
February 6, 2025
Of all the Roman books I have read on the period from the Antonine until the Constantinian period this has been the most in depth on a governmental and militaristic level discussing the changes that took place. Especially its theme of the imperial apparatus changing from a senatorial culture into an equestrian culture with governorship increasingly taken up by military men. Details the key players in this period really well. Would definitely recommended this book to anyone interested in this period.
April 11, 2024
The book is chock-full of bureaucratic details I had a very hard time caring about. No doubt Michael Kulikowski is knowledgeable and thorough, but I wasn't his intended market. I did learn a good bit, but I had to suffer to do it.
October 25, 2017
Great book, I would recommend reading this with Edward Luttwak's "The Grand Strategy of The Roman Empire."
August 12, 2018
Exemplary. Popular history at its best.
September 15, 2018
A detailed yet fairly easy-to-follow sketch of "middle" Roman Empire with all the bloody palace intrigues, without missing the process of emergence of equestrian class.
March 13, 2020
Another academic leech weaving stories of glory from old, unreliable data: how you should die for the empire so he could get a bigger pension from the government.
March 19, 2022
A solid read, but of a slog. A lot of information/insights to digest on the Roman Empire in the 2nd to 4th centuries. Going to give his follow-on book The Tragedy of Empire a read.
February 3, 2020
The two centuries between Hadrian and Constantine are the Roman Empire at its height. Prof. Kulikowski does a good job of covering the period, with its many emperors and frontier wars. The most important take-away for me is his emphasis on the "equestrianization" of the bureaucracy and how powerful posts in the capital and provinces were filled increasingly less by senators and more by the equestrian class. As might be expected, the prose is of the dense academic variety filled with the names of lesser officials that at times make for a blizzard of names. I liked the book more for its content and main conclusions than for the author's style.
April 24, 2024
Kulikowski's does a great job explaining a lesser-known era in Roman history, predominantly focusing on the 3rd century. This era, marked by political turbulence and upheaval, is notably less documented than other periods of the Empire's history, making Kulikowski's in-depth analysis particularly valuable.
One of the book's strengths lies in making more understandable to the reader the chain of political upheavals and usurpers with clarity, although the sheer volume of names and events may become overwhelming at times. Despite this minor drawback, the book offers a comprehensive overview of this crucial moment in history, a bridge from the classical world to the Christian Middle Ages
While Kulikowski's focus on political history and rulers may not appeal to all readers, his meticulous approach provides a rigorous examination of the structures and dynamics shaping the Roman Empire during this pivotal period. Additionally, his exploration of the challenges posed by scarce sources adds depth to the narrative, offering insights into the complexities of historical interpretation. Overall, "Imperial Triumph" stands as a valuable contribution to Roman history, offering a nuanced perspective on a crucial era often overshadowed by the more celebrated golden age of the empire.
One of the book's strengths lies in making more understandable to the reader the chain of political upheavals and usurpers with clarity, although the sheer volume of names and events may become overwhelming at times. Despite this minor drawback, the book offers a comprehensive overview of this crucial moment in history, a bridge from the classical world to the Christian Middle Ages
While Kulikowski's focus on political history and rulers may not appeal to all readers, his meticulous approach provides a rigorous examination of the structures and dynamics shaping the Roman Empire during this pivotal period. Additionally, his exploration of the challenges posed by scarce sources adds depth to the narrative, offering insights into the complexities of historical interpretation. Overall, "Imperial Triumph" stands as a valuable contribution to Roman history, offering a nuanced perspective on a crucial era often overshadowed by the more celebrated golden age of the empire.
January 3, 2017
A great book, particularly if you're interested in the time period. He presents it very well and talks not just about the Emperors but about government and other officials. My only main critique is that sometimes all the names can become confusing (the author even notes that in one paragraph), but this was reinforced for me as I was reading it fast for research purposes. If I had not done so, I feel I would have understood certain passages much better. However, this does not mean it is confusing, just that you occasionally have to take your time.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews