What do you think?
Rate this book
Rome: Strategy of Empire
The first work to lay out Roman strategic thinking from its start under Augustus until its final demise in 476 CE
From Octavian's victory at Actium (31 B.C.) to its traditional endpoint in the West (476), the Roman Empire lasted a solid 500 years -- an impressive number by any standard, and fully one-fifth of all recorded history. In fact, the decline and final collapse of the Roman Empire took longer than
most other empires even existed. Any historian trying to unearth the grand strategy of the Roman Empire must, therefore, always remain cognizant of the time scale, in which she is dealing. Although the pace of change in the Roman era never approached that of the modern era, it was not an empire in
stasis. While the visible trappings may have changed little, the challenges Rome faced at its end were vastly different than those faced by Augustus and the Julio-Claudians. Over the centuries, the Empire's underlying economy, political arrangements, military affairs, and, most importantly, the
myriad of external threats it faced were in constant flux, making adaptability to changing circumstances as important to Roman strategists as it is to strategists of the modern era.
Yet the very idea of Rome having a grand strategy, or what it might be, did not concern historians until Edward Luttwak wrote The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire: From the First Century A.D. to the Third forty years ago. Although the work generated much debate, it failed to win over many ancient
historians, in part because of its heavy emphasis on military force. By mostly neglecting any considerations of diplomacy, economics, politics, culture, or even the changing nature of the threats Rome faced, Luttwak tells only a portion of what should have been a much more wide-ranging narrative.
For this and other reasons, such as its often dull presentation, it left an opportunity for another account of the rise and fall of Rome from a strategy perspective. Through a more encompassing definition of strategy and by focusing much of the narrative on crucial historical moments and the
personalities involved, Strategy of Empire promises to provide a more persuasive and engaging history than Luttwak's. It aims not only to correct Luttwak's flaws and omissions, but will also employ the most recent work of current classical historians and archeologists to present a more complete and
nuanced narrative of Roman strategic thinking and execution than is currently available.
From Octavian's victory at Actium (31 B.C.) to its traditional endpoint in the West (476), the Roman Empire lasted a solid 500 years -- an impressive number by any standard, and fully one-fifth of all recorded history. In fact, the decline and final collapse of the Roman Empire took longer than
most other empires even existed. Any historian trying to unearth the grand strategy of the Roman Empire must, therefore, always remain cognizant of the time scale, in which she is dealing. Although the pace of change in the Roman era never approached that of the modern era, it was not an empire in
stasis. While the visible trappings may have changed little, the challenges Rome faced at its end were vastly different than those faced by Augustus and the Julio-Claudians. Over the centuries, the Empire's underlying economy, political arrangements, military affairs, and, most importantly, the
myriad of external threats it faced were in constant flux, making adaptability to changing circumstances as important to Roman strategists as it is to strategists of the modern era.
Yet the very idea of Rome having a grand strategy, or what it might be, did not concern historians until Edward Luttwak wrote The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire: From the First Century A.D. to the Third forty years ago. Although the work generated much debate, it failed to win over many ancient
historians, in part because of its heavy emphasis on military force. By mostly neglecting any considerations of diplomacy, economics, politics, culture, or even the changing nature of the threats Rome faced, Luttwak tells only a portion of what should have been a much more wide-ranging narrative.
For this and other reasons, such as its often dull presentation, it left an opportunity for another account of the rise and fall of Rome from a strategy perspective. Through a more encompassing definition of strategy and by focusing much of the narrative on crucial historical moments and the
personalities involved, Strategy of Empire promises to provide a more persuasive and engaging history than Luttwak's. It aims not only to correct Luttwak's flaws and omissions, but will also employ the most recent work of current classical historians and archeologists to present a more complete and
nuanced narrative of Roman strategic thinking and execution than is currently available.
430 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2022
28 people are currently reading
275 people want to read
About the author
James Lacey
39 books27 followersJames G. Lacey is the Marine Corps University’s Major General Matthew C. Horner Chair of War Studies, where serves as professor and course director for War, Policy, and Strategy, as well as Political Economy at the Marine Corps War College. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in History from The Citadel and a Ph.D. in Military History from Leeds University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
September 28, 2022
In 1976, Edward Luttwak published The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire in which he argued that the Romans did indeed have a grand strategy. The book caused a sensation, not least for the fact that Luttwak was not a historian but rather an American military strategist and, for a time, a consultant to Ronald Reagan’s administration. While admitting its historical sweep, professional historians rushed to debunk the book and, in general, they seem to have succeeded. The consensus among Roman historians today is that Rome worked on an ad hoc basis, with individual emperors responding to crises as they arose. The view is that the Empire lacked the ongoing central command necessary for a grand strategy, as well as not having a clear view of frontiers nor any way to map them in order to conduct an overall strategy.
James Lacey, another working military strategist, enters the debate with Rome: Strategy of Empire and makes a robust case for Luttwak’s overall thesis: the Romans did indeed have a grand strategy and they were more than able to adapt their policies accordingly. Lacey answers the critics, who point out that there is a dearth of Roman historical sources detailing strategic thinking, by looking at the facts on the ground: in particular, the Empire’s unparalleled ability to field, feed and focus huge armies throughout the breadth of the Empire. Lacey also argues that for the emperor, maps were unimportant because what he needed to know was where a crisis was, which was the nearest legion and how long it would take the legion to get there. Roman itineraries, which allowed generals to estimate accurately how long it would take them to get to crisis points, would, Lacey says, have furnished the required information better than any map. What was more, the Mediterranean and the key frontier rivers, the Rhine and the Danube, allowed the Romans to deploy armies far more quickly than their enemies through their use of maritime or riverine resupply.
Rome: Strategy of Empire begins with the reign of Augustus and ends with the fall of the Western Empire, providing an overview of the interplay between the Roman economy and Roman strategy. However, it suffers, as does Luttwak’s original, from not considering in any detail the strategy of the Roman Republic, which actually conquered most of the territory that the later Empire sought to protect and consolidate.
Lacey had the experience of decades in the military before becoming an academic military strategist and this allows him to apply practical knowledge to all aspects of military operations but in particular the crucial importance of logistics. When we compare the huge armies – in the tens of thousands - regularly fielded by the Romans to the armies of the early Medieval period which, in Britain, could number as few as 35 men, we can clearly see the strength of Roman logistical efforts.
In Rome: Strategy of Empire Lacey seeks to overturn the established academic consensus. With battle rejoined, it will be fascinating to read their response. But one thing is sure: once this book is published the strategy of the Roman Empire will once again be a hot topic among historians.
James Lacey, another working military strategist, enters the debate with Rome: Strategy of Empire and makes a robust case for Luttwak’s overall thesis: the Romans did indeed have a grand strategy and they were more than able to adapt their policies accordingly. Lacey answers the critics, who point out that there is a dearth of Roman historical sources detailing strategic thinking, by looking at the facts on the ground: in particular, the Empire’s unparalleled ability to field, feed and focus huge armies throughout the breadth of the Empire. Lacey also argues that for the emperor, maps were unimportant because what he needed to know was where a crisis was, which was the nearest legion and how long it would take the legion to get there. Roman itineraries, which allowed generals to estimate accurately how long it would take them to get to crisis points, would, Lacey says, have furnished the required information better than any map. What was more, the Mediterranean and the key frontier rivers, the Rhine and the Danube, allowed the Romans to deploy armies far more quickly than their enemies through their use of maritime or riverine resupply.
Rome: Strategy of Empire begins with the reign of Augustus and ends with the fall of the Western Empire, providing an overview of the interplay between the Roman economy and Roman strategy. However, it suffers, as does Luttwak’s original, from not considering in any detail the strategy of the Roman Republic, which actually conquered most of the territory that the later Empire sought to protect and consolidate.
Lacey had the experience of decades in the military before becoming an academic military strategist and this allows him to apply practical knowledge to all aspects of military operations but in particular the crucial importance of logistics. When we compare the huge armies – in the tens of thousands - regularly fielded by the Romans to the armies of the early Medieval period which, in Britain, could number as few as 35 men, we can clearly see the strength of Roman logistical efforts.
In Rome: Strategy of Empire Lacey seeks to overturn the established academic consensus. With battle rejoined, it will be fascinating to read their response. But one thing is sure: once this book is published the strategy of the Roman Empire will once again be a hot topic among historians.
May 2, 2024
I decided to read this book because I've been interested in Roman history lately. I have been in need of something different to read because sometimes I get tired of reading about just modern history and theology. James Lacey, the author, has had a stellar career in the United States Military, and is a professor of Strategy at the U.S. Marine Corps War College, so you don't have to worry about his credentials at all. What Mr. Lacey argues is that despite what has been written in the past by a bunch of historians, the Roman Empire was able to think in strategic terms and craft a coherent strategy that lasted it for nearly 500 years. He argues that the Romans had three elements that made the core of their strategy: protecting their economic prosperity, maintaining an army that had no equals and having a supply of manpower that was inexhaustible.
In the first section of the book, Lacey lays out his argument for why the Romans were truly able to do strategy. He looks at reasons that past historians have laid fourth about why the Romans couldn't think in strategic terms and he refutes their arguments. He does a very good job, and although I'd like to spend time going through those arguments, it would take up too much time. After I read the first section, I felt convinced that the Romans were able to think and adopt coherent strategy.
The Second and Third sections of the book are then a military history of the Roman Empire, which have the context of strategy in mind. We see how the Romans were able to hold up a pretty good strategy and how civil wars ultimately destroyed the empire and ruined it's ability to make strategy and survive.
As I read through these last sections, while I was trying to keep strategy in mind, I found myself a little distracted at the end, especially once the book got to the fall of the empire. Yes, the author was able to keep the narrative about strategy, but it was hard to keep track of emperors after constantine, because so many came and went.
Overall, I think this book is a great addition to the field of Roman History, and I am glad Mr. Lacey wrote this book. In the book, Mr. Lacey says that he hopes to add something new to the debate and talk of Roman History, and I have to say that he certainly has. I plan on talking about this book with people I know who are history buffs and recommending it to them.
In the first section of the book, Lacey lays out his argument for why the Romans were truly able to do strategy. He looks at reasons that past historians have laid fourth about why the Romans couldn't think in strategic terms and he refutes their arguments. He does a very good job, and although I'd like to spend time going through those arguments, it would take up too much time. After I read the first section, I felt convinced that the Romans were able to think and adopt coherent strategy.
The Second and Third sections of the book are then a military history of the Roman Empire, which have the context of strategy in mind. We see how the Romans were able to hold up a pretty good strategy and how civil wars ultimately destroyed the empire and ruined it's ability to make strategy and survive.
As I read through these last sections, while I was trying to keep strategy in mind, I found myself a little distracted at the end, especially once the book got to the fall of the empire. Yes, the author was able to keep the narrative about strategy, but it was hard to keep track of emperors after constantine, because so many came and went.
Overall, I think this book is a great addition to the field of Roman History, and I am glad Mr. Lacey wrote this book. In the book, Mr. Lacey says that he hopes to add something new to the debate and talk of Roman History, and I have to say that he certainly has. I plan on talking about this book with people I know who are history buffs and recommending it to them.
July 8, 2025
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ – Rome Remembered Through Strategy, Not Just Spectacle immersive Kindle/audible. I also broke down and found a used hardcover for the amazing maps and visuals
James Lacey’s Rome: Strategy of Empire is a bold and fascinating take on Roman history that puts strategy, logistics, and long-term planning at the center of the empire’s rise—and its eventual unraveling. Rather than relying on the usual parade of emperors and epic battles, Lacey digs into the deeper structural and strategic decisions that shaped Rome’s extraordinary longevity.
Personally, I learned so much about the final few centuries of the Roman Empire from this book. Those periods are often either rushed through or written off as inevitable decline. But Lacey makes a convincing case that Rome didn’t just collapse—it lost its way. He essentially shows that Rome forgot how to be Rome. The strategic coherence that had once driven expansion and held the empire together gave way to fragmented spheres of power, endless civil wars, and a lack of unified purpose.
It’s amazing, honestly, that the Roman Empire lasted as long as it did. The sheer resilience of its institutions—even as they were being chipped away by internal conflict—is something I now appreciate more fully. Lacey’s detailed research and sharp insights into civil-military relations, frontier policy, and internal cohesion gave me a whole new understanding of how power was maintained—and lost.
The book can get a little dense in places, especially with military detail and repetition of certain strategic themes. And I occasionally wished for more exploration of the cultural and legal innovations that also helped define Roman identity. But as a strategic history, it’s incredibly effective.
Rome: Strategy of Empire has changed the way I think about the ancient world. Rome wasn’t just a collection of emperors and conquests—it was an evolving power structure, always walking the tightrope between strength and fragmentation. This book captures that tension with clarity and depth. Many lessons to learn from this book!
James Lacey’s Rome: Strategy of Empire is a bold and fascinating take on Roman history that puts strategy, logistics, and long-term planning at the center of the empire’s rise—and its eventual unraveling. Rather than relying on the usual parade of emperors and epic battles, Lacey digs into the deeper structural and strategic decisions that shaped Rome’s extraordinary longevity.
Personally, I learned so much about the final few centuries of the Roman Empire from this book. Those periods are often either rushed through or written off as inevitable decline. But Lacey makes a convincing case that Rome didn’t just collapse—it lost its way. He essentially shows that Rome forgot how to be Rome. The strategic coherence that had once driven expansion and held the empire together gave way to fragmented spheres of power, endless civil wars, and a lack of unified purpose.
It’s amazing, honestly, that the Roman Empire lasted as long as it did. The sheer resilience of its institutions—even as they were being chipped away by internal conflict—is something I now appreciate more fully. Lacey’s detailed research and sharp insights into civil-military relations, frontier policy, and internal cohesion gave me a whole new understanding of how power was maintained—and lost.
The book can get a little dense in places, especially with military detail and repetition of certain strategic themes. And I occasionally wished for more exploration of the cultural and legal innovations that also helped define Roman identity. But as a strategic history, it’s incredibly effective.
Rome: Strategy of Empire has changed the way I think about the ancient world. Rome wasn’t just a collection of emperors and conquests—it was an evolving power structure, always walking the tightrope between strength and fragmentation. This book captures that tension with clarity and depth. Many lessons to learn from this book!
September 23, 2022
Lacey offers an insightful survey of the grand sweep of Roman imperial history from the perspective of military strategy. He persuasively argues against the tendency among modern historians to discount the empire's ability to formulate and execute grand strategy. This is a first class work of analytical history. Unaccountably, it is marred by countless typos and misspellings. I expect more from Oxford University Press, especially for $30 hardcover.
June 7, 2025
Good overview history of the Empire, specifically the Western Empire. But what sets this apart is the focus on strategic considerations and how Rome, over time, was able to adapt strategically to ever-changing conditions. Until it was not, of course.
Causes for the early expansion of the empire and how at a certain point, the strategic focus switched to a defensive mode and how that was accomplished are discussed in great detail. As are the causes of the crisis of the 3rd century, how the outcome of that changed the strategic considerations of the emperors.
My only real complaint is the perfunctory final chapter, where the author weighs in on how to apply the lessons of the Roman Empire to modern nation-states. Seems fashionable to do so these days but it does not add to the conversation.
Overall, fascinating and highly interesting.
Causes for the early expansion of the empire and how at a certain point, the strategic focus switched to a defensive mode and how that was accomplished are discussed in great detail. As are the causes of the crisis of the 3rd century, how the outcome of that changed the strategic considerations of the emperors.
My only real complaint is the perfunctory final chapter, where the author weighs in on how to apply the lessons of the Roman Empire to modern nation-states. Seems fashionable to do so these days but it does not add to the conversation.
Overall, fascinating and highly interesting.
May 2, 2024
A good book, providing a history of Imperial Rome with a focus on its grand strategy. The author, noted historian James Lacey, seeks to refute the many arguments against a coherent grand strategy of Ancient Rome put forth since Edward Luttwak’s 1976 book on the topic. Keeping to the themes of his previous works on U.S. strategy in the 20th century, Lacey emphasizes the systemic nature of Imperial Roman strategy and its resource-centric focus. The book covers the full period of Imperial Rome, from the reforms of Augustus to the fall of the Western Empire. Lacey argues that the variety of individual strategies across this period shared basic traits of protecting the resource “spine” of Rome-Africa-Egypt, maintaining the Emperor’s prestige, and flexing the methods of military response available to a well organized state. This continuity demonstrates the presence of both strategic methodology and understanding within Roman leadership. As with all of his work, the reader does need to work past Lacey’s combative composition to understand the centrality of resourcing and systemic thinking in his theory of strategic thought. A great book for understanding important methods and considerations for strategy development.
December 2, 2025
Coming into this book, I was not aware that historians believed that the Romans had no conception of grand strategy or strategic thinking when it came to their empire. Learning of this in the introduction, and learning of Mr. Lacey's argument, I am entirely in favor of his argument that the Romans did indeed possess the mental capacity to think of grand strategy in terms of territorial expansion and retainment. Even though the frontiers were so massive in scale, and information took time to be taken to Rome, strategy must've been a thought when they were planning their bases, creating cities, and rotating deployments of legions. Lacey provides full evidence that this was indeed occurring throughout most of the Empire's time, although we see it coming apart when the empire began to be overrun by general-turned-emperors in the late Empire times.
August 6, 2022
Thanks to Edelweiss+ for the DRC of this title.
The history and drama of the Roman Empire has long held the world fascinated. James Lacey adds a new layer to the epic drama by framing the history from a military general perspective in this enthralling historical tomb. Well researched and carefully laid out, "Rome: Strategy of Empire" is a good read for anyone interested in that time period in world history.
The history and drama of the Roman Empire has long held the world fascinated. James Lacey adds a new layer to the epic drama by framing the history from a military general perspective in this enthralling historical tomb. Well researched and carefully laid out, "Rome: Strategy of Empire" is a good read for anyone interested in that time period in world history.
April 14, 2025
gets a bit dry at points but overall solid book that proves its thesis.On repeat.
March 8, 2023
An interesting account of the Roman empire, applying strategic, geopolitical and economic analyses to the basic question of how did Rome maintain its empire for so long. The author offers some very interesting descriptions of Roman arms, tactics, legion organization and structure, infrastructure and logistics. Power lay with the legions, and those seeking power had to enlist legions in their support, either by successful campaigns or by outright bribery. It is astounding how fragmented political power was throughout the duration of the empire, as one after another would-be usurper of the Imperial purple would rise and fall, sometimes succeed. Emperors spent as much time defending their rear within the empire a they did defending the greater whole of the empire from external threats. Uprisings, outright civil wars, intending murders and plotting and power struggles - it is a wonder the empire lasted as long as it did. That is a testament to Roman resources, economic and military, ruthlessness and imperial strategies pushing conquest and conflict out to the boundaries while incorporating conquered ands and tribes whiten the empire's ethos. Ultimately, the inevitably increasing fragmentation due to the unceasing power struggles within, the increasing competence and unification of enemies without, and diminishing resources with which to confront the constant dangers led to the dissolution of empire. Makes one appreciate the peaceful transition of power that is our hallmark. No such thing in ancient Rome!
July 6, 2022
It was one of those book that makes you reflect and realize that it's a new idea, the idea of a Roman general strategy.
The book is well researched and there's a lot of interesting reflections.
I found it thought provoking.
Highly recommended.
Many thanks to the publisher for this ARC, all opinions are mine
The book is well researched and there's a lot of interesting reflections.
I found it thought provoking.
Highly recommended.
Many thanks to the publisher for this ARC, all opinions are mine
May 6, 2023
Insightful
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews