Constantine: Roman Emperor, Christian Victor

by Paul Stephenson

In 312 A.D., Constantine-one of four Roman emperors ruling a divided empire-marched on Rome to establish his control. On the eve of the battle, a cross appeared to him in the sky with an exhortation, "By this sign conquer." Inscribing the cross on the shields of his soldiers, Constantine drove his rivals into the Tiber and claimed the imperial capital for himself. Under Constantine, Christianity emerged from the shadows, its adherents no longer persecuted. Constantine united the western and eastern halves of the Roman Empire. He founded a new capital city, Constantinople. Thereafter the Christian Roman Empire endured in the East, while Rome itself fell to the barbarian hordes. Paul Stephenson offers a nuanced and deeply satisfying account of a man whose cultural and spiritual renewal of the Roman Empire gave birth to the idea of a unified Christian Europe underpinned by a commitment to religious tolerance.

Genres: History, Biography, Nonfiction, Roman History, Ancient History, Christianity, European History

358 pages, Hardcover

First published December 1, 2009

About the author

Paul Stephenson studies the early and middle Byzantine periods (A.D. 300-1204). His published work has focused on middle Byzantine political and cultural history; the history and historiography of Southeastern Europe, medieval to modern; and religious warfare. Currently he is: completing a cultural history of a Byzantine monument, the Serpent Column; researching late antique and Byzantine views of sacred warfare and spiritual combat; editing separate volumes on the desire for Byzantium outside former Byzantine lands, and on the fountains of Byzantion - Constantinople - Istanbul; writing a general history of the Late Roman Empire in the East, c. 400-843, for Harvard Univ. Press and Profile Books. Stephenson has taught in the UK, Republic of Ireland, and the USA, and has held research fellowships from the British Academy (in Oxford), the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (in Mainz), the Alexander S. Onassis Foundation (in Athens), and the Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study (in Uppsala). Before coming to Nijmegen, he was for five years Professor of Medieval History at Durham University, and for six year before that the Rowe Professor of Byzantine History at Dumbarton Oaks and the University of Wisconsin - Madison. In 2011-12 he was Vassiliadis Visiting Professor of History at the University of California, San Diego. Stephenson is a fellow of the Royal Historical Society (UK).

Stephenson offers instruction across a range of areas in medieval and Byzantine history. Notably, he offers a themacollege (senior seminar) on the transition from late antiquity to Byzantium and a research seminar devoted to medieval Rome and Constantinople for the MA Roma Aeterna. He is a co-convenor of the Duae Romae seminar, and teaches core elements of the HLCS research MA. He offers lectures for the undergraduate surveys of "Medieval History" and "Europa".

Reviews

[Zachary · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is less a biography of Constantine than it is an attempt to ground his conversion and promotion of Christianity within the theological and ideological understandings of imperial power that evolved from the upheavals of the Crisis of the Third Century. As such, I found this far more interesting than a simple retelling of the outlines of Constantine's life would have been. The Crisis of the Third Century shattered the Roman empire and many of the ideological and social bases upon which the empire had rested. The imperial system and the religious understandings within which it existed evolved as a consequence of these changes. During the Crisis, legitimacy to rule came to be grounded on victory, which was required to maintain the allegiance of the soldiers. This led to strains of propaganda with a strongly religious bent, the victories and thus legitimacy being depicted as based on divine favor. This came during a time that also saw a lot of religious ferment, as insecurity drove both the crumbling of old socially-based religious understandings and the rise of new religions marked by broadly syncretic and monotheistic thrusts and emphases on personal salvation. As a consequence, a leader who was victorious and of a new religion, could do much to spread that religion by acting as a display of the apparent power of the religion to win divine favor. Constantine latched onto Christianity, drove for toleration of it, then for outright promotion of it, and the rest was history. The author makes clear how Constantine, unlike his successors, seemed most concerned with promoting Christianity, but not with destroying older religions. In this, he was to be commended. However, it is also clear that Constantine was a monstrous individual, who killed his own son, multiple brothers-in-law, and a wife. He won because he was smart and he was ruthless. I understand him better, though I like him no better. As I read, however, I found myself really wishing we had more/any sources from his time that were not impacted by his propaganda and myth-making. So much of Constantine as a person and ruler is shrouded in mystery, and this is a pity.

[Elizabeth Sulzby · Rating 5 out of 5]

Paul Stephenson's Constantine is the best coverage by themes and best documented history of any of the Roman emperiors I have read thus far. Highly recommended. I gave it 5 stars but I realize that it won't be interesting to many. Good news is that this is Stephenson's first book.

Constantine was a strong emperor who made Christianity more strongly accepted in the Roman world and, hence, in history and later history of the RC church. The fun is that after a few short-lived decendents, Julian the Apostate gained the throne and revitalized the Greek/Roman gods and goddesses.

I have read lead-up histories and historical fiction from around 1C BCE up to the 4th C. CE from both christian and non-christian viewpoints. Since Constantine declared the Roman catholic religion as the religion of the Roman Empire, this marks an important and more documented point in time, often misstaken as the state of the "church" from the time of Jesus and his apostles onward. The claim, quite believable, is that the hierarchical and powerful winnowing of accepted belief (and brutal destruction of people who believed "heretical" ideas) fit well with an empire that was also becoming more and more powerful through hierarchical design and power channels. (I am editing this review on 11/16/2013 having read much more about the typically chaotic nature of the Roman armies along with a growing sense of how to maintain order, lines of command and morale. The church's hierarchical structure and regimentation truly would have been helpful as a "state religion" so that claims to power could be made to keep the troops "in line. )

I knew that heresies were "created" by the overpowering "true belief" within the early church/churches. I knew people were put to death but I did not know the brutal forms of death--such as flaying, stripping flesh from the bones while the person was alive; burning at the stake--sometimes after flaying; and other evil tortures, such as stretching on racks pulling the bones, ligaments, tendons, etc., apart. Many times stories were created about the persons deemed heretical when in fact their differences were minor and appeared to be as well based in the line of "true belief" as those of the conquering church.

Following this history and what led up to it and came immediately after revelations that the papacy (the papa bishop, now called the Pope) evolved in fits and starts, with claims about relics such as bones, clothing (the Turin Shroud, for example) and gravesites being embodied in churches, monasteries/nunneries, etc. The early apostles and their apostles believed that Jesus the Christ would re-appear during their lifetimes; when that didn't happen they needed explanations to keep the religion going in spite of this disappointment. The history of the apostles after Jesus's death shows multiple claims and documentations made for the lines of descent from the apostles' lives, beliefs, and deaths. Recent reports on the Dead Sea scrolls/Nag Hammadi MSS show many of the competing candidate explanations and lives of the key figures during Jesus' lifetime and in the early 1st/2nd centuries. I am just beginning to read in detail about the creation of the "canons" of the Pentateuch and other Jewish scripture; the roman catholic canon; and, later, the protestant canon. I had covered this arena much earlier when the document was scanty (but often described as fact, in theological and church historical writings).

I quit reading this book down for quite some time, and when I returned to it, I found it very compelling. Some interesting points: he argues that one reason christianity spread so fast was because of Jewish beliefs on marriage, the elevated status of women in the early years of the church (before the church boys began their wars on women), and the lack of infanticide as a policy. More marriages, more women married, more babies and more babies living, etc., lead to the growth of the church and Constantine's use of the church and pro ported conversion to christianity multiplied the influence of women and families.

Stephenson depicts Constantine's "conversion" as a change in beliefs and the utility of beliefs over time. Constantine consciously upheld tolerance for other religions, except for the Deus Maximus that the entire armed forces had to honor along with honoring of the emperor. Stephenson traces the lines of beliefs from the spirit within a given object (numina), multiple gods across peoples/countries for parts of a person's life: Gods of war/prosperity/fortune-luck, etc. He also held tolerance and also used other religious cults with "mysteries," such as Mithraism. It was finally near Constantine's death that he proclaimed a total conversion to christianity and was baptized.

Constantine chose to honor meetings to deal with schisms and so-called heresies in the new church: Arles, Nicosea, etc. Thus his name was given prominence equal to or greater than the bishops, esp. of Rome (later the papas, or popes). During this period, his rule of tolerance of local and private beliefs turned into one of intolerance to bring the views of certain christians either into death (torture, including pulling on racks, flaying, burning at the stake or combinations of these).

Stephenson, like other writers, caution that the sins of the church and empire occurred alongside many humble or devoted and loving people who adhered more to the "love thy neighbor" and spiritual lessons drawn from Jesus' and his apostles' lives and teachings.

[Kadir Kılıç · Rating 3 out of 5]

Beklediğim kadar iyi bir kitap değildi. Çok fazla tekrar vardı ve çoğu bölümünü okumak çok sıkıcıydı. Yine de Constantinus dönemine ait bazı olayları kavradığım için çok kötü puan vermedim.

[Ryan Campbell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Paul Stephenson’s Constantine: Roman Emperor, Christian Victor is an enjoyable exploration of Constantine’s life and times. As previous reviews have stated, Stephenson’s study includes an exploration of the religious changes in the Roman Empire of the 4th century C.E. Stephenson concludes that Constantine and his subsequent embrace of Christianity caused the religion to be seen as the religion of victory, all based in the old imperial theology of victory.

I also enjoyed how Stephenson utilized his sources in this book. He used traditional text sources, although many of these are questionable since many authors embellished or made mistakes. He also used coins and art in his book to support an idea. As someone who enjoys coins I found his use of them interesting.

I recommend this book to anyone who is interested in the Roman Empire or religious history. A background knowledge of the time period in question is highly recommended.

[Nathan Bell · Rating 4 out of 5]

The spread of Christianity happened rapidly, partly because of persecution. People who had no fear of death had nothing to take away. Yet there was another reason for this: babies. While the Roman empire encouraged procreation and discouraged celibacy, many Roman men were killing their unwanted babies while the Christians were saving theirs. Of all the roman emperors, Diocletian was among the worst. Underneath him was a rising officer named Constantine. He disapproved of the emperor's religious persecution but bided his time carefully. It is possible that his mother Helena, whom his father Constantius Chlorus had divorced, was a Christian. Father and son got along well, and when Constantius became emperor in the West, it was expected that Constantine would succeed him. Then Diocletian made Maximinus Daia and Severus Caesars instead. But after Constantius Chlorus died, his army acknowledged Constantine as their Caesar.

It had been said that Rome was too big to be ruled by one man, and so the empire at the turn of the 4th century was ruled by a tetrarchy. In theory, there were 4 emperors at a time, but in reality, there were 2 "Augusti" and 2 Caesars, the former being more powerful. Constantine and Maxentius ruled in the west while Licinius and Maximinus Daia ruled the east. Despite any inclinations he may have had to Christianity, Constantine had the politics of a shark- as did many other rulers. To improve his foothold on power, he had married Minervina, the niece of Diocletian. Then he made a pact with Licinius in the east- he would fight Maxentius in the west while Licinius fought Daia in the East.

Constantine traveled southeast into Rome and met Maxentius at a crossing of the Tiber River called the Milvian Bridge. The night before battle, it was rumored that he had a dream in which he saw a symbol called the Chi-rho and was told that this symbol would bring him victory. The Romans took symbols very seriously and tended to gravitate towards any symbol or religion that might bring them victory. He had followed Sol Invictus, the unconquerable Sun, but he decided to fight under a new symbol. The God of the Christians became his god. Whether this change was immediate or gradual is debatable, but he believed that this god might bring him victory.

In an effort to protect the city, Maxentius had destroyed part of the Milvian Bridge to keep Constantine from crossing. Then, for whatever reason, Maxentius crossed the river on wooden pontoon bridges to make battle. This was a grave mistake, and when he tried to retreat across the bridge, he fell over the side and drowned. He had begun many building projects in Rome, but these projects would be finished by Constantine, and bear Constantine's name. The memory of Maxentius was expunged, and he was simply referred to as "the tyrant." Yet for Christians, there was reason to rejoice. After decades of persecution, Christianity was finally tolerated, and at times even promoted.

Licinius had started building a city called Byzas on a peninsula where two continents met. After Constantine subdued Licinius, Byzas was reclaimed, fortified, and renamed after Constantine. While he built many structures in Rome, he chose not to live there. Rome would gradually crumble in the west, while Constantinople would thrive for another 1000 years in the East- and with it, Orthodox Christianity.

The Romans had merged religion and politics for decades. Individuals in the empire were allowed to worship their own private gods, so long as they made their sacrifices to the Roman ones. Since many Christians had refused to sacrifice, they were persecuted. Constantine changed this. He did not make Christianity the state religion, but he protected it, built churches, and even took down certain religious centers for other religions. Many Roman coins were still minted with the image of Sol, but over time, Christian symbols started appearing.

While Constantine may have enjoyed his power, his married life was not necessarily happy. Minervina had borne him a son named Crispus, who many expected to succeed him. But after her death Constantine had remarried another woman named Fausta, the sister of Maxentius, who was about the same age as Crispus. After rumors of an affair between Crispus and Fausta, Constantine had his son executed. Then, either he had Fausta murdered or she committed suicide. The kingdom would eventually be divided among his other sons: Constantine II, Constans, and Constantius II. These sons warred against each other.

Despite his new-found faith, Constantine still bore the responsibilities of earthly rule, and with that huge responsibility came huge mistakes. Politicians want victory, and Christianity had given him many victories. Yet after his victories, finding the truth about his new belief system became his passion. It soon became evident that Christians were divided on many issues. One of these issues was the deity of Christ.

Most Christians believed that Jesus was all God and all man. Yet a certain teacher named Arius believed differently. While he acknowledged that Jesus was related to God, he believed Jesus to be a created being and therefore not God. Because of this and other disagreements, a major church council was held in the summer of 325. During this council, the teachings of Arius were rejected, and the Nicene creed was developed. This creed became a central doctrine in the early church. Contrary to the narrative of The DaVinci Code, the Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the canonization of the Bible. What the early church had disagreed on was doctrine, and the first Council brought some clarity.

Was Constantine really a Christian, or was he just a pragmatic leader who found a belief system that taught honesty, social responsibility, and respect for earthly authority? If all he wanted was authority and respect, he certainly got those things. Some may ask why he was not baptized until the end of his life. In those days, many considered serving in politics or the military to be unworthy of a Christian. The Roman military had traditionally demanded sacrifice to its gods and had therefore persecuted many Christians in the past. Besides this, being a soldier meant killing, and he had put his son to death, along with several of his relatives. Therefore, he waited to be baptized. He was on his way to war in Persia when his health began to deteriorate and was formally baptized into the church before breathing his last.

It was not until the late 4th century that another emperor would make Christianity the state religion: Theodosius. It is ironic that the empire that had once fed Christians to lions was now embracing that same religion. Obviously, being the leader of a Christian nation or being part of a Christian nation does not make a person a Christian in God's eyes. Yet the truth of Christianity does not hinge on the faith of Constantine or Theodosius; it hinges on faith in Jesus Christ. Christianity is not about establishing an earthly kingdom through conquest; it as about building a heavenly kingdom centered around worship of the one true God.

[Rob Collinge · Rating 1 out of 5]

Professor Stephenson’s life of Constantine contains what I believe to be a fundamental flaw. I was astonished to find myself reading a version of history that clashed with everything I had ever read about this period. It was always my understanding that 4th Century Christianity was a minor sect that had made little progress in 300 years and without Constantine’s dramatic intervention might well have died out.

Now I learn (and the book places great emphasis on this) that 4th Century Romans had suddenly woken up to the inherent superiority of Christianity over all other religions and that the Roman Empire was inevitably destined to go Christian in the near future. Constantine just helped things along a bit and decided basically to ‘go with the flow’.

Well that is certainly not what I learn from other historians. For instance:
• Gibbon’s 18th Cent classic ‘Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire’
• Professor A H M Jones : ‘Constantine and the Conversion of Europe’
• Professor Michael Hart : ‘A Ranking of the 100 Most Influential Persons in History’
• Peter Heather : ‘The Fall of the Roman Empire’
• Britannica.com on the Internet
• Even on TV, Alistair Sooke in ‘Treasures of Ancient Rome’ describes Christianity before Constantine as ‘an obscure sect’ and ‘a fringe religion’.

What really annoys me is that Professor Stephenson presents his own preferred vision of history as undisputed historic fact, apparently condemning all other historians as incorrect and misguided. He appears to be either one of the ‘revisionist’ historians who invent versions of history unsupported by anyone else in order to attract a wider audience or a person who lets his religious convictions warp his judgement. Either way, such a lack of objectivity in a supposedly ‘eminent historian’ is, in my opinion, most unfortunate.

[Louise · Rating 3 out of 5]

I don't know how to rate this and be fair to the author. I was looking for a general reader's introduction to Constantine and his times, but this was not the book. I have no idea if it was a good representation of this Emperor, but I know this book was too academic for me.

The first third of the book is devoted to introductory material. In the introduction, the author says this background is needed, but this background isn't re-visited much in the rest of the text. The intro could be reduced by 80% without harming, and even helping the general reader.

Wanting to know about Constantine I stayed with it, but my retention was limited. The narrative about Constantine was interrupted by too many explications of art work on coins, frescoes, buildings and memorials. At times I felt I was reading a flood of facts.

Not knowing the limitation of the primary sources or knowing what a book on Constantine should include, I can't rate this book. It may be a very good book, but my experience of it was not. I'll give it a middling number of stars.

[Pieter Baert · Rating 5 out of 5]

Constantine by Paul Stephenson is not your average 'Roman Emperor biography'. Stephenson is enormously detailed in his description of Constantine's world and the role religion played in the Roman world of the 3d and 4th centuries AD. He makes a detailed description of many layers of the Roman society and as such, gives us a nice detailed setting of the world Constantine lived in. The book is meticulous but never overreaches. Unlike many other biographies of the classical world, Stephenson never attempts to fill the gaps with assumptions. What is not known for certain about Constantine is not mentioned. This of course makes it difficult for a reader who expects a book where he really gets to know and identify with the 'protagonist'. Nevertheless, Stephenson compensates for these gaps brilliantly by giving us a full detailed story of the Roman world Constantine lived in and perceived and we're given first rate seats in the great play of Rome and the cult of Jesus Christ growing towards each other and laying the foundations of a Christian Empire. A must read!

[John Ball · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good book.

The author tries to write a history book that is also a popular book for the general public, and he wanders at times from one genre to the other. He sometimes gives too much detail about loosely related people and events (as in a history book) and he sometimes spends paragraphs on speculative material that would be more appropriate in an historical novel. Endnotes are extensive, and I like that a lot.

His description of Christian church growth before Constantine, especially the role of women in that growth, and what he sees as the reasons behind the attraction of Christianity were insightful and interesting. I liked the palace intrigues and battle details that were directly relevant, but I could have done with less on other warfare. His details about Roman military camp life were very interesting.

In common with other modern historical writers, the author has a tendency to discount and malign the authors of material written during the time of interest. There is a strong tendency to assume that favorable writers are biased toward a falsely positive presentation and that unfavorable writers are biased the other way. This means the reader must trust the author to sift out the truth by means of his or her conjectures, knowledge and wisdom.

In addition, I suspect the author does not understand what it means to be a convert or to be a Christian. He repeatedly puts motivations in Constantine’s heart that I doubt were there. The author sprinkles doubt on the reality of Constantine’s Christianity throughout the book. He slides in facts such as that Constantine ran a war machine after his conversion and that he had a number of people executed, including his own relatives. The author apparently thinks a real Christian would not do such things.

All in all, it was a good book and has excellent reference material in the back. Constantine was already a hero of mine. What I gained from the book is a bit of confidence that Christianity would probably have become the dominant religion in the western world whether or not Constantine had converted. But who knows?

[Frank Grobbee · Rating 5 out of 5]

Constantine: Roman Emperor, Christian Victor karya Paul Stephenson adalah biografi historis yang menawarkan sudut pandang baru tentang bagaimana Constantinus Agung berhasil mengintegrasikan Kekristenan ke dalam struktur kekuasaan dan militer Romawi. Stephenson menggali dengan cermat konteks religius pasukan Romawi sebelum Kekristenan, menunjukkan bahwa kekuatan agama dalam militer bukanlah hal baru. Sebelum Constantinus, militer Romawi sangat bergantung pada "kultus kemenangan" dengan dewa-dewa seperti Mars dan Sol Invictus, yang menekankan kemenangan sebagai tanda dukungan ilahi.

Yang membuat buku ini sangat menarik adalah analisis Stephenson tentang bagaimana Constantinus mampu mengubah Kekristenan menjadi "kultus kemenangan" baru yang selaras dengan semangat militer. Dengan menekankan simbol-simbol kemenangan ilahi, seperti salib dan visi di Jembatan Milvian, Constantinus memperkenalkan elemen-elemen Kekristenan yang bisa diterima kalangan militer, sekaligus memperkuat legitimasinya sebagai kaisar yang mendapat dukungan Tuhan.

Buku ini memberikan perspektif segar tentang transisi Kekristenan dari agama yang dipersekusi menjadi agama resmi Kekaisaran, dan bagaimana Constantinus menggabungkan politik, agama, dan militer dengan cara yang efektif dan inovatif. Stephenson menggambarkan Constantinus bukan hanya sebagai pemimpin yang membawa perubahan agama, tetapi juga sebagai ahli strategi yang tahu bagaimana memanfaatkan kekuatan religius untuk memperkuat kekuasaannya. Bagi pembaca yang tertarik pada sejarah agama dan militer Romawi, karya Stephenson ini adalah bacaan yang sangat berharga.

[Gabriel Covington · Rating 1 out of 5]

One of the most useless pieces of bias and inflaming trash I've read. The author consistently paints all Christians in a very bad light and Constantine is not spared. The book starts with the implication of him being a despot who forced himself on the world and ends by blaming him for Islamic jihad! (This is not the only time he randomly inserted Islam into the conversation for no reason whatsoever other then to offend or tear down, but for this claim anyone educated on Islamic conquest would know that the only Christians the Prophet knew we're peaceful exiles, it was only after he died that was with the Romans really began, thus, this is a flat faced lie!)

The framing is so negative that it's a wonder how anyone could read this and make it out without a rotten feeling in his or her gut.

Most of his sources are unmarked in the pages of the book itself, which is good since almost all of his claims about his nature being negative come from his political enemies and pagans! I'm far from one to believe the Christian sources alone but the truth is likely closer to the middle then one end or the other.

Utter trash. A terrible waste of what could have been some fine fire starter.

[Jeff · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a great read if you are interested in Constantine. Constantine as a political and historical figure is fascinating. This book drags at times; it's definitely a little dense, but there is much here to be mined in terms of our sanitized historical perspective of an emperor who's conversion may have had more to do with a solar flare and desire for political gain than a proper "conversion" and desire for Christianity to spread to the ends of the earth. Stephenson does a fantastic job of setting up an argument for how Constantine's theology of victory came to be and the historical revision that followed throughout Eusebius' writings. To be sure, the more time spent with Constantine, the more (in my opinion) he begins to resemble a certain polarizing world leader we see today. Stephenson writes, "Constantine was no holy warrior, still less a crusader. He was a Roman emperor whose fate was determined within the strictures of the imperial theology of victory." This imperial theology of victory, in my opinion, has done more damage to our modern day understanding of faith, politics and war than we would ever give Constantine credit for...after all, he's a hero of faith....

[Beth Koop · Rating 4 out of 5]

It’s been decades since I have read a scholarly account of Constantine and the understanding of his life has come a long way. From the emperor who brought Christianity into the limelight to the one who most corrupted Christianity by aligning the religion with the state, this account gives a more nuanced view. Stephenson offers some enlightening ideas of why Christianity was growing anyway - Christianity forbade child marriages which allowed more women to survive childbirth; abortion and infanticide were forbidden, so they had more children; and they cared for their sick so they developed immunities and lived longer. However, you can’t deny that Constantine’s favor led more people and people in higher positions to favor Christianity. You also can’t deny that his role secularized Christianity, leading people to become Christian for benefits and rationalizing the ability of Christians to participate in warfare. Stephenson’s account, however, is eminently readable and gives a very fair account of the sources we have and how they have influenced the way we see and understand Constantine.

[Eileen Iciek · Rating 5 out of 5]

Paul Stephenson's biography of Constantine starts with the great man's father, Constantius I, tracing his rise to power that lead the way for the son's. Ancient sources are used to flesh out Constantine, but unlike many other historians, Stephenson does not get into psychoanalyzing his subject. He does say that Constantine was "impulsive", but I would disagree with that assessment. He was careful in his initial maneuvers against Maximian and Maxentius, declining to get involved too quickly. That kind of strategic thinking helped him to gain the throne, as well as keep it for just over 30 years.

The book was excellent. My only complaint was about the quality of the paperback copy. The font size was smaller than that of two other histories I bought about the same time. Also, there were pages of illustrations tucked in the book that were poor quality, B&W and difficult to discern the characteristics mentioned by the author.

[Bishoi Aziz · Rating 2 out of 5]

Paul Stephenson tried to portray Constantine’s life in this book. Unfortunately, the readability of the book is very poor. Paul crammed a LOT of information without being able to really portrays a coherent picture many times. He also clearly allowed his biases getting into the work. For example, he simply put in the book the notion that Mithras was born from a virgin despite there’s no single historic evidence about this myth other than speculations leaving you to simply draw the parallel to the birth of Christ from the virgin Mary. He would also dismisses the accounts of Eusebius as a propaganda, which I don’t oppose to, only because he sympathizes with Constantine, while depends heavily on any account against Constantine with putting these accounts to the same scrutiny as Eusebius’.! That made this book to be highly biased.!

[Red · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author makes a lot of assertions, including ones that diasagree with other historians. One of the most interesting assertions is that Constantine's conversion was gradual, arguing from a sociology viewpoint that all religious conversions are such. But the author is no sociologist, forcing him to rely on tye work of other sociologists to prove this contentious point. Thus, his argument is weakened, lacking in credibility due to lack of speciality.

I found similar things throughout the book.

I gave it 3 stars since it was interesting and brought up some new points. That and Constantine is becoming my favorite Roman emperor to study.

[Valerie · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was disappointed in this one. I was looking for a straightforward biography of Constantine and the city of Constantinople but this was more of an analysis of Constantine, his religious beliefs, and the military circumstances he was in. Very dense, and contradictory at times, this work was not meant to be read for general knowledge. It seemed to be geared to use as another secondary source for when you are conducting research. There is no doubt the author is passionate about Constantine but this book was did not fit my specific needs. It gets two stars because I didn’t hate it but I didn’t necessarily like it either.

[Daniel Kukwa · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very strange. This is far less about Constantine and far more about all the events and people that catch Constantine in their nets...primarily in the course of the development of Christianity as the supreme religion of the Roman Empire. The result is a book full of fascinating information, but also far FAR too much of this. It is superficially chronological in construction, but it dives head-long into great swaths of in-depth subject matter, from urban design to the composition of the army. You learn a great deal about the era of the late empire, but you actually learn very little about Constantine himself. He remains an enigma from the first page to the last page.

[Rodney · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed reading this book, always wanted to know why the Empire had a change of heart when it came to Christianity, now I know. I like the fact that Constantine was a family man and had the utmost respect for his mother, pretty much a momma's boy like myself. Will continue reading about the Empire, now I want to know why Nero was such a villain when it came to the Christians. Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

If there's one thing I learned from this book, it's that the real man who was Constantine lies well hidden behind his historians' personal agendas and his own propaganda. I appreciate Stephenson's numerous photographs and allusions to coins and other ancient artifacts that help fill in blanks. I think his treatment of mystery religions and their connection to Christianity, however, is overemphasized and not current with Second Temple studies.

[Guillaume Dohmen · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent biography

This book puts Constantine in his time and does not judge him by today’s standards. It is a increasingly popular thing to judge historical personalities by today’s ethical standards. Historians sometimes forget that today’s standards are those of two world wars, the Vietnam War, the Middle East Wars, Hiroshima. - not better than those of the very early Middle Ages.

[Ahmet · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sometimes drown in details but overall a very deep description of Roman perception of "religion" and its relationship with the society, politics and of course military (hint: Fortuna plays a huge part in deciding the "true emperor, religion").

Of course describes well how Constantine played a part during the rise of Christianity in Roman World and how he lived through the chaotic times of tetrarchy.

[Asher Burns · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fascinating, if a bit irritating at times due to the author's imperfect understanding of and occasionally snide attitude toward Christianity.

Frankly, I'm skeptical that Constantine was a Christian - he certainly didn't seem to act like it. But, who knows?

[AJS · Rating 3 out of 5]

Decent though a bit more academic spiral than a fully engaging history. Some pieces on early church infighting meandered around and did not truly add *that* much to my appreciation of Constantine the emperor. Though one piece was an interesting connection to the Nicene Creed.

[Ross · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not very biographical for a biography. Focus is more on Christianity’s rise and Constantine feels like a shadow in the background.

[Adam]

More balanced than I expected, with a title like this

[Tracey · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5 Little dry

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Paul Stephenson tells the story of Constantine, first Christian emperor of Rome, with both a readable style and depth of background. The first part sets the stage, looking at religion in the third century Roman Empire, the rise of Christianity, and the tetrarchy established by Diocletian. Most interesting here is the Roman theology of victory and the relationship of the Roman emperor to the military. Stephenson argues that Constantine's belief that the Christian god gave him victory fits right in line with previous emperor's belief in divinely given victory. Of course, Constantine was the first to attribute his victory to the Christian god.

Stephenson does well in giving a balanced view of Constantine: Constantine did not simply make Christianity the most powerful religion, instead he saw a faith already ascending and got on board with it. Further, while Constantine may have seen a vision prior to the battle at Milvian Bridge in 312, the legend that he had a vision from the Christian god the night before the battle was a later retelling of what actually happened, as Constantine was reinterpreting his life in light of his faith.

In the end, we get a picture of a man who eventually has a sincere faith in the Christian god, but of course this faith is influenced more by the Roman theology of victory than by any sort of nonviolence of Jesus himself. Constantine's focus was on the glorious, victorious God more than the Jewish carpenter. Constantine's vision of Christianity was of a unified church for the good of the empire, which influenced his interactions at Nicea and in regard to the Donatists. He legalized Christianity and gave it a favored status, ultimately setting the path for his descendants who made paganism illegal and Christianity the only legal religion.

If you want a good historical read on the life of a man often blamed for much that went wrong in Christianity, check this out.

[Rob Atkinson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Boilerplate historical exposition and introductory background material get this history (for it is a history, rather than a true biography) off to a slow start. However as the book progresses its focus and themes become clear, and form a lucid and compelling analysis of what motivated Constantine to eventually adopt Christianity, thereby radically changing the course of history. Many stories of Constantine's life that are 'common knowledge' prove to be apocryphal, as during his own lifetime his story was retroactively rewritten to reflect his increasing attachment to the Christian faith, and one finds the Emperor's saintly portrayal by contemporary panegyrists covers up a history of ruthless power seeking and even the cold-blooded killing of his wife and eldest son. For those with only a superficial knowledge of Constantine and his era this work will be full of surprises, and for those who enjoy reading about the seamier side of Imperial Rome there's some juicy material here. Stevenson also happily avoids getting bogged down in the schismatic squabbles of the early Church as many histories of the late Empire do, succinctly dealing with the knotty ecclesiastical history in a single chapter.
One only wishes this pivotal Emperor had had a Suetonius or Tacitus to illuminate his character; Constantine did not, and the man himself remains something of a cipher. Much must be inferred from his public actions, and by gleaning what truths can be discerned in mostly fawning or piously propagandistic chronicles of his life.
All in all, however, it's a surprisingly enjoyable and highly edifying read, a well written and organized account of Constantine the successful general and leader, of his tumultuous era, and of the ultimate triumph of Christianity in the Roman world.

[Brian Collins · Rating 3 out of 5]

Stephenson produced a workmanlike biography of Constantine. It was consistently informative, if not always engaging. On the issue of Constantine's conversion, Stephenson steers a middle course between those who argue it was an insincere political machination and Eusebius's glowing portrait of the Christian emperor. Stephenson believes the evidence points to a sincere but gradual conversion. In other words, Constantine did sincerely convert, but he was emperor over a religiously diverse empire, and he had religious duties as emperor. Thus there is some ambiguity between 312 and 317. But the trajectory is that of a man with a deepening commitment to Christianity. Stephenson also discusses Constantine's roles in the Donatist and Arian controversy. His view is that Constantine saw the doctrine differences as trivial, but he nonetheless demanded a unified Christian church. Thus he imposed unifying solutions on the church. This led the emperor who proclaimed toleration of all religions to persecute Christian heretics and schismatics. If there is any part of the book that church historians are likely to disagree with, it would be the section on the councils. Constantine's role is placed in the foreground and the bishops' roles are minimized. Nonetheless, Stephenson has produced a helpful biography of Constantine, and the bibliographical essays that conclude the work contain a wealth of information.