What do you think?
Rate this book
Constantine the Great: The Man and His Times
Constantine the Great delves into the reasons why the reign of this Roman emperor (306-37) marked an historical epoch, albeit one charged with irony. Founding his capital at Constantinople, Constantine revitalized the Eastern half of the empire, enabling it to survive and to flourish (as the Byzantine Empire) for another thousand years. Yet, as Grant shows, this shift of power to the east would prove fatal to the Western empire and have profound consequences for Europe as a whole.
Constantine’s most far-reaching decision, however, was the legalization of Christianity and his conversion to the faith. Without this dramatic change, Christianity might have remained a suppressed, minority religion—or worse. Grant points out the irony behind this watershed too: For Constantine, the Christian God represented not peace but power, not humanity but success in warfare.
Whatever the emperor’s motives, Christian writers of that period—and after—greatly admired Constantine. Grant draws on their writings judiciously, while noting, for example, that Eusebius fails to mention Constantine’s murder of his own son and his empress. Grant deftly explores the many questions surrounding these killings—Had the son plotted revolution? Had his stepmother, the empress, fallen in love with him? Had the emperor allowed a charge of rape (possibly false) brought by the empress against her stepson, to stand?—and goes further than any historian before him in finding answers.
In examining Constantine as soldier, administrator, Christian, father, andhusband, Michael Grant produces a rich composite picture of a gifted but profoundly flawed man.
“Michael Grant is justly recognized as an expert & civilized guide to the ancient world.”—The Economist
“Michael Grant was one of the few classical historians to win respect from academics & a lay readership.”—The Times, London
List of Illustrations
List of Maps
Acknowledgements
Preface
The sources
The rise to supremacy
Civil Wars
Foreign Wars
The government & character of Constantine
Constantine, Crispus & Fausta
Constantinople
Constantine & the Christian God
Constantine & the Christian church
Builder
Baptism, death & succession
The significance of Constantine
Chronological Table
Some Later Roman Emperors
Genealogical Table
Maps
Abbreviations
References
Some Books
Index
279 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1993
12 people are currently reading
400 people want to read
About the author
Michael Grant
166 books158 followersMichael Grant was an English classisist, numismatist, and author of numerous popular books on ancient history. His 1956 translation of Tacitus’s Annals of Imperial Rome remains a standard of the work. He once described himself as "one of the very few freelances in the field of ancient history: a rare phenomenon". As a popularizer, his hallmarks were his prolific output and his unwillingness to oversimplify or talk down to his readership.
Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.
Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
October 25, 2013
This is one of Michael Grant's better books. One of his poorer books is another biography, that of Herod the Great. The reason for the difference may be that while there are relatively few sources for Herod, there are relatively many for Constantine, allowing Grant a broader canvas and more materials to reconstruct the character of the man and his times.
There is also some humor--a major virtue in an historian--in this book, more than I've been accustomed to from Grant's popular histories. Of course, most of it is dark and ironical.
The greatest impediment to my enjoyment of this biography is the great amount of space Grant devotes to Constantine's supposed architectural accomplishments. One who has visited the sites mentioned would get more out of it, but for readers like myself less travelled the lack of any photographs or diagrams is sorely felt.
As re Constantine and Christianity, Grant comes down firmly on the side of those who believe the emperor's conversion sincere and date it to long before his death. Constantine's god, however, is only barely recognizable as Christian in today's terms.
There is also some humor--a major virtue in an historian--in this book, more than I've been accustomed to from Grant's popular histories. Of course, most of it is dark and ironical.
The greatest impediment to my enjoyment of this biography is the great amount of space Grant devotes to Constantine's supposed architectural accomplishments. One who has visited the sites mentioned would get more out of it, but for readers like myself less travelled the lack of any photographs or diagrams is sorely felt.
As re Constantine and Christianity, Grant comes down firmly on the side of those who believe the emperor's conversion sincere and date it to long before his death. Constantine's god, however, is only barely recognizable as Christian in today's terms.
February 15, 2022
Not an easy book (for me) to read and even a harder one to write. Certainly it has been mentioned that much of what was written about Constatine falls into two groups: those who extolled what he did (largely Christians), and those who despised him (largely pagans). With difficulty, Michael Grant makes a sincere effort to sort these extremes out and prints a believeable picture of the man.
August 20, 2022
One of the better biographies I’ve read
June 21, 2016
There is no reason for it to take me so long to read a book that only had 225 pages of actual text, but it was just...so....bad.
I don't know why that was. Grant is know as a good writer and an excellent historian, and he certainly had an interesting subject, but I guess everyone's going to be off their game at some time or another. I struggled to even finish it. For the first hundred pages, every ten pages I kept thinking I was going to give up and put it down, because the writing was choppy and difficult, but I told myself I wasn't going to be defeated by a measly 200 page book. As I went along I got more used to the writing style and more interested in the information, so I made it through, but it was not a pleasant experience. Definitely not going to repeat.
I don't know why that was. Grant is know as a good writer and an excellent historian, and he certainly had an interesting subject, but I guess everyone's going to be off their game at some time or another. I struggled to even finish it. For the first hundred pages, every ten pages I kept thinking I was going to give up and put it down, because the writing was choppy and difficult, but I told myself I wasn't going to be defeated by a measly 200 page book. As I went along I got more used to the writing style and more interested in the information, so I made it through, but it was not a pleasant experience. Definitely not going to repeat.
September 20, 2012
Just started Aug 30. Grant's style is very readable and this is basically a book that covers not only the man but deals well with Church History in the 300's. Grant states in the beginning that original sources are either all positive (some even overt flattery) by Christian authors or down right condemning (Pagan authors). I have enjoyed Grant's books over the years. Good for the casual fan.
The book is more "general" and an overview that I thought it would be. It certainly is an introduction to the man and not as in depth as I had hoped for.
The book is more "general" and an overview that I thought it would be. It certainly is an introduction to the man and not as in depth as I had hoped for.
April 9, 2016
As the two stars indicate, "it was okay."
January 20, 2025
So, Constantine the Great. Was he really great? Well… it’s complicated.
Constantine the Great: The Man and His Times, was a fantastic read! Michael Grant made the period and the man very accessible, informative, and dynamic in a fairly concise ~230 pages. This is no simple task, as Grant specifies in the beginning that understanding Constantine and his times is made difficult by the fact that, while there are robust sources, most all of them either vehemently hate or absolutely love him. Despite this, Grant cuts through the haze with his book and tries to go deeper, past all the early Christian jubilation and Pagan’s tearing their hair out to explore the man and his times.
Anyways, that being said, was Constantine great? (In my opinion based on Grant’s work and my general understanding of Constantine).
I think the best way to look at this is to break it out into a couple of different categories (I don’t like to make things easy, clearly). Part of my inspiration from this comes from Robin Pierson’s History of Byzantium, where he describes his belief that the later Justinian I ‘the Great’, was a great man… but not a great emperor due to his strategic decisions. In that vein:
1. Was Constantine a Great man? Answer: Yes. To be clear, he was not a *good* man. Constantine was a ruthless, murderous, megalomaniacal person who committed acts that Grant finds heinous even with the context of the times. However, that ruthlessness combined with pure military and administrative skill, as well as the true belief that he was God’s anointed emissary on Earth made him an exceptional leader and thus a ‘great’ man. As Grant says of these traits: “That, surely, it must be repeated, is the stuff of which the most successful leaders were made.’ While he was not successful in everything he did, we must recognize the sheer skill it must have taken to reunite a fractured empire and embark on sweeping social and political change within his lifetime.
Sidenote: Despite what Gibbon and others may feel, Constantine was probably a true believer in Christianity, per Grant. However, Constantine was capable of blending his emotional sincerity and purely pragmatic aims together and in no way was this more true than with Christianity.
2. Okay, he was a great man then, what about a ‘great’ emperor? In a way, this one depends on how you look at it, and Grant notes that too. If you look at Constantine as the man who set in motion the Byzantine Empire through the conversion to Christianity and the creation of Constantinople, the city at the heart of another 1000+ years of “Roman” civilization, then it’s hard to say he wasn’t a great emperor. However, if you look at him through the lens of what he did for the mess that was the declining (and falling) Western Roman Empire, well… perhaps not so much. Constantine made multiple strategic errors which would come back to haunt the western empire. His reorganization of the army proved troublesome, his Germanization of the army and allowance of hundreds of thousands of Germans to settle in Roman borders would become a problem in the future, his setting the stage for another war with Persia was pretty bad, and his succession plan was harebrained at BEST. That being said, the Western Empire was already on its way out - the forces of history were against it. In my estimation, Constantine was a Great emperor. He was no Augustus, but his decisions made possible that extra millennium of Byzantine power, even though they helped speed up the fall of Rome itself.
Also, a final sidenote: How did the conversion to Christianity, Constantine’s most known accomplishment, play into it? Well, it was a failure per Constantine’s strategic aims. He wanted to use the unity of the Christians and their church to breed religious and social unity throughout the empire, hence why he united church and state themselves. That, of course, was a total bust though. Christians can’t agree on much, and in that time the smallest theological difference caused major rifts and heresies. But did it cause the fall of the Roman Empire, as Gibbon’s thesis goes? No, per Grant and most historians, it didn’t. Did it speed things up? Grant says it’s possible, but the reality is there were far larger and more impactful negative trends crushing the empire from inside and out than the strife that came with Christianity.
Constantine the Great: The Man and His Times, was a fantastic read! Michael Grant made the period and the man very accessible, informative, and dynamic in a fairly concise ~230 pages. This is no simple task, as Grant specifies in the beginning that understanding Constantine and his times is made difficult by the fact that, while there are robust sources, most all of them either vehemently hate or absolutely love him. Despite this, Grant cuts through the haze with his book and tries to go deeper, past all the early Christian jubilation and Pagan’s tearing their hair out to explore the man and his times.
Anyways, that being said, was Constantine great? (In my opinion based on Grant’s work and my general understanding of Constantine).
I think the best way to look at this is to break it out into a couple of different categories (I don’t like to make things easy, clearly). Part of my inspiration from this comes from Robin Pierson’s History of Byzantium, where he describes his belief that the later Justinian I ‘the Great’, was a great man… but not a great emperor due to his strategic decisions. In that vein:
1. Was Constantine a Great man? Answer: Yes. To be clear, he was not a *good* man. Constantine was a ruthless, murderous, megalomaniacal person who committed acts that Grant finds heinous even with the context of the times. However, that ruthlessness combined with pure military and administrative skill, as well as the true belief that he was God’s anointed emissary on Earth made him an exceptional leader and thus a ‘great’ man. As Grant says of these traits: “That, surely, it must be repeated, is the stuff of which the most successful leaders were made.’ While he was not successful in everything he did, we must recognize the sheer skill it must have taken to reunite a fractured empire and embark on sweeping social and political change within his lifetime.
Sidenote: Despite what Gibbon and others may feel, Constantine was probably a true believer in Christianity, per Grant. However, Constantine was capable of blending his emotional sincerity and purely pragmatic aims together and in no way was this more true than with Christianity.
2. Okay, he was a great man then, what about a ‘great’ emperor? In a way, this one depends on how you look at it, and Grant notes that too. If you look at Constantine as the man who set in motion the Byzantine Empire through the conversion to Christianity and the creation of Constantinople, the city at the heart of another 1000+ years of “Roman” civilization, then it’s hard to say he wasn’t a great emperor. However, if you look at him through the lens of what he did for the mess that was the declining (and falling) Western Roman Empire, well… perhaps not so much. Constantine made multiple strategic errors which would come back to haunt the western empire. His reorganization of the army proved troublesome, his Germanization of the army and allowance of hundreds of thousands of Germans to settle in Roman borders would become a problem in the future, his setting the stage for another war with Persia was pretty bad, and his succession plan was harebrained at BEST. That being said, the Western Empire was already on its way out - the forces of history were against it. In my estimation, Constantine was a Great emperor. He was no Augustus, but his decisions made possible that extra millennium of Byzantine power, even though they helped speed up the fall of Rome itself.
Also, a final sidenote: How did the conversion to Christianity, Constantine’s most known accomplishment, play into it? Well, it was a failure per Constantine’s strategic aims. He wanted to use the unity of the Christians and their church to breed religious and social unity throughout the empire, hence why he united church and state themselves. That, of course, was a total bust though. Christians can’t agree on much, and in that time the smallest theological difference caused major rifts and heresies. But did it cause the fall of the Roman Empire, as Gibbon’s thesis goes? No, per Grant and most historians, it didn’t. Did it speed things up? Grant says it’s possible, but the reality is there were far larger and more impactful negative trends crushing the empire from inside and out than the strife that came with Christianity.
April 24, 2019
While other emperors and generals in antiquity were styled as “Great” or Magnus in their time (Caesar’s rival Pompey being the best example), it’s usually only Constantine who’s remembered in modern history as having this title. Indeed, it’s rare to see his name used without the accompanying honorific. This can largely be attributed to Constantine’s role as the first Christian emperor, a man who played a key, if not crucial, role in the advancement and eventual triumph of this faith as the sole recognized religion in Europe and other parts of the world for centuries to come. Largely due to this achievement, the life of Constantine has been obscured by hagiography, tendentious, outright propaganda that see the guiding hand of the Lord behind every action or statement Constantine ever made. All of this raises questions. Can we ever really know what sort of person Constantine was, given the huge temporal gap between when he lived and the present day and the obvious unreliability of many contemporary historical sources? Can we ever confidently conclude that Constantine was indeed a “great” person?
The author, Michael Grant, is a former Cambridge don and has written a number of well received books on various subjects pertaining to antiquity. Like the reputable scholar he is, Grant takes a careful, measured approach to his subject, always striving for objectivity. He begins his biography with a sober evaluation of the contemporary sources on Constantine’s life, both pagan and Christian. Grant notes the ideological bias that motivates many of the latter sources, discussing the flaws and strengths of such writers as Eusebius of Caesarea, but also recognizes the inherent prejudices of Constantine’s pagan critics (who were many).
This just the facts, ma’am, approach allows the author to reach several well supported conclusions. Grant does a good job of describing Constantine’s strengths: his military prowess (although Grant notes that the majority of his victories were won in civil wars against other Romans); his enormous capacity to plan and implement ambitious, empire wide schemes; his gift for dissembling and conspiracy, absolutely essential qualities in an atmosphere of palace intrigue and backstabbing; and his subtlety in advancing his pro-Christian agenda in the face of a still overwhelmingly pagan elite. Grant also effectively rebuts conjectures that Constantine may have been simply seeking tactical advantage in employing Christianity as a unifying principle and that he may also have had lingering pagan sympathies if not outright beliefs. He documents the emperor’s sincere, unswerving Christian faith.
At the same time, Grant is also careful to examine and evaluate Constantine’s flaws as a ruler and a human being. He notes how Constantine’s basic, soldierly approach to Christianity left him completely unsuited to understanding the torturous, complicated arguments over the nature of Christ’s divinity that resulted in violent, irremediable conflict between schisms, Arianism being one of the most well known. Even more importantly, Grant points out how Constantine’s looking to Christianity as a unifying principle for the empire contained a fatal flaw, his complete failure to consider the fissiparous, quarrelsome nature of the early Christians, their failure to achieve any unity of their own that continues to this day. Grant also describes Constantine’s personal failings, the worst of which undoubtedly has to be the murder of his first born son, Crispus, followed shortly thereafter by the assassination of his wife Fausta. As the author reasonably concludes, these are horrible, unforgivable crimes and simply cannot be excused even during a period as brutal and turbulent as late antiquity. Grant also notes Constantine’s geopolitical failures, the most egregious of these being his decision to provoke a war with the Sassanian Empire (located in what is now Iran) in the face of increasingly serious threats from barbarians in the Danube and along the Rhine.
I recommend this book both to scholars of antiquity and also to laymen who are interested in learning more about this historical period. Those who seek to have their prejudices reinforced, however, would do better to go to the original source and read Eusebius.
The author, Michael Grant, is a former Cambridge don and has written a number of well received books on various subjects pertaining to antiquity. Like the reputable scholar he is, Grant takes a careful, measured approach to his subject, always striving for objectivity. He begins his biography with a sober evaluation of the contemporary sources on Constantine’s life, both pagan and Christian. Grant notes the ideological bias that motivates many of the latter sources, discussing the flaws and strengths of such writers as Eusebius of Caesarea, but also recognizes the inherent prejudices of Constantine’s pagan critics (who were many).
This just the facts, ma’am, approach allows the author to reach several well supported conclusions. Grant does a good job of describing Constantine’s strengths: his military prowess (although Grant notes that the majority of his victories were won in civil wars against other Romans); his enormous capacity to plan and implement ambitious, empire wide schemes; his gift for dissembling and conspiracy, absolutely essential qualities in an atmosphere of palace intrigue and backstabbing; and his subtlety in advancing his pro-Christian agenda in the face of a still overwhelmingly pagan elite. Grant also effectively rebuts conjectures that Constantine may have been simply seeking tactical advantage in employing Christianity as a unifying principle and that he may also have had lingering pagan sympathies if not outright beliefs. He documents the emperor’s sincere, unswerving Christian faith.
At the same time, Grant is also careful to examine and evaluate Constantine’s flaws as a ruler and a human being. He notes how Constantine’s basic, soldierly approach to Christianity left him completely unsuited to understanding the torturous, complicated arguments over the nature of Christ’s divinity that resulted in violent, irremediable conflict between schisms, Arianism being one of the most well known. Even more importantly, Grant points out how Constantine’s looking to Christianity as a unifying principle for the empire contained a fatal flaw, his complete failure to consider the fissiparous, quarrelsome nature of the early Christians, their failure to achieve any unity of their own that continues to this day. Grant also describes Constantine’s personal failings, the worst of which undoubtedly has to be the murder of his first born son, Crispus, followed shortly thereafter by the assassination of his wife Fausta. As the author reasonably concludes, these are horrible, unforgivable crimes and simply cannot be excused even during a period as brutal and turbulent as late antiquity. Grant also notes Constantine’s geopolitical failures, the most egregious of these being his decision to provoke a war with the Sassanian Empire (located in what is now Iran) in the face of increasingly serious threats from barbarians in the Danube and along the Rhine.
I recommend this book both to scholars of antiquity and also to laymen who are interested in learning more about this historical period. Those who seek to have their prejudices reinforced, however, would do better to go to the original source and read Eusebius.
October 6, 2021
Very detailed account of Constantine's reign from his rise to power, titles, power struggles, wars and legacies such as Constantinople and being the first Christian emperor.
I bought this book to research Constantine's belief in Christianity and it did give me some insight. The author states the emperor's beliefs started with a vision of a cross and a dream. Constantine dreamt that God spoke to him and told him to conquer at the battle of the Milvian bridge, and he did. From there, Constantine believed God was the one who gave him power and title and was THE God to believe in (pg 153), but he never let go of his pagan beliefs because many of his subjects were pagans (pg 158) and he nurtured Roman attitudes about Christianity (pg 182). Constantine affected the future of religion with his beliefs and actions. He melded Paganism and Christianity as seen in the Protestant churches today. He created the chi-rho symbol from a dream where God spoke to him. However, I don't see evidence or documentation that he was a true convert. He believed in God as a source of power for success, but not as a Lord or Master that would humble his choices and change his actions. No description of his behavior aligning with the fruits of God's Spirit was given or discussed. Being assured God is powerful and a source of power doesn't convince me Constantine knew God and changed because of Him. He didn't change from paganism.
I wanted to know why Constantine didn't follow the Hebrew church. Why did he change the sabbath to Sunday, why did he take away all things Hebrew from the church and change the church, but that wasn't discussed here. The author did mention that Constantine punished Jewish endeavors against imperial unity (rebuilding the Jewish temple) but supported pagans (pg 182) in their missionary efforts. The book also mentions that Christians were persecuted because of opposition to sacrifices and divination (pg 126-127). Bishop Eusebius condoned the persecution. He's the same person that added John 6:4 and started the misconception that the Messiah's time was more than 70 weeks.
It seems to me that Constantine is an influencial person in the Roman Catholic faith, but not of Spirit-filled or Messianic believers. He promoted Roman ideals and pagan beliefs, not scriptural or Biblical ones.
I bought this book to research Constantine's belief in Christianity and it did give me some insight. The author states the emperor's beliefs started with a vision of a cross and a dream. Constantine dreamt that God spoke to him and told him to conquer at the battle of the Milvian bridge, and he did. From there, Constantine believed God was the one who gave him power and title and was THE God to believe in (pg 153), but he never let go of his pagan beliefs because many of his subjects were pagans (pg 158) and he nurtured Roman attitudes about Christianity (pg 182). Constantine affected the future of religion with his beliefs and actions. He melded Paganism and Christianity as seen in the Protestant churches today. He created the chi-rho symbol from a dream where God spoke to him. However, I don't see evidence or documentation that he was a true convert. He believed in God as a source of power for success, but not as a Lord or Master that would humble his choices and change his actions. No description of his behavior aligning with the fruits of God's Spirit was given or discussed. Being assured God is powerful and a source of power doesn't convince me Constantine knew God and changed because of Him. He didn't change from paganism.
I wanted to know why Constantine didn't follow the Hebrew church. Why did he change the sabbath to Sunday, why did he take away all things Hebrew from the church and change the church, but that wasn't discussed here. The author did mention that Constantine punished Jewish endeavors against imperial unity (rebuilding the Jewish temple) but supported pagans (pg 182) in their missionary efforts. The book also mentions that Christians were persecuted because of opposition to sacrifices and divination (pg 126-127). Bishop Eusebius condoned the persecution. He's the same person that added John 6:4 and started the misconception that the Messiah's time was more than 70 weeks.
It seems to me that Constantine is an influencial person in the Roman Catholic faith, but not of Spirit-filled or Messianic believers. He promoted Roman ideals and pagan beliefs, not scriptural or Biblical ones.
August 23, 2018
Grant has a tough task trying to paint an accurate picture of Constantine, because, as he says himself (repeatedly), all of our sources about him are either hopelessly hagiographic, because he was the first Christian emperor and made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, or irredeemably hostile ... because he was the first Christian emperor and made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. But he does a good job, describing the actions of an excellent field general, a cautious and moderate policy maker who nevertheless acted from a place of conviction, while also condemning Constantine’s actions when they’re harmful and ill judged (provoking a war with Persia), ultimately pointless (his victories over the Goths and Sarmatians) or downright evil (his executions of his oldest son and empress). On the question of whether Constantine’s conversion was genuine or a shrewd political calculation, Grant’s answer boils down to “Both,” but it’s a conclusion that he reaches by exploring the subtleties of the situation and the historical context that led Constantine to the decisions he made, and it’s a thorough and well-rounded argument. Grant can be repetitive at times, and I’d have liked more time spent on the foundation of Constantinople.
February 2, 2022
Somewhat dry, but not insanely so. My takeaways from this book are that Constantine was an able military commander, but he was a little in over his head as an emperor: his overspending led to ruinous levels of taxation, which caused people to give up farming and become hermits or bandits, he continued to waste resources on a ruinous rivalry with Persia, and his division of the Empire between his children led to a series of pointless civil wars. On the other hand, the failures of his successors suggest that maybe he was in a no-win situation: maybe the Empire was simply too large and overstretched to be financially sustainable or politically manageable.
Grant suggests that his conversion to Christianity, although probably sincere, was rational because Christians were a relatively cohesive and well-organized group, and having their support was helpful. However, his efforts to unite the Empire around Christianity failed because Christians were internally divided.
Grant suggests that his conversion to Christianity, although probably sincere, was rational because Christians were a relatively cohesive and well-organized group, and having their support was helpful. However, his efforts to unite the Empire around Christianity failed because Christians were internally divided.
March 18, 2022
I own some of Grant's work specifically on the Greeks and on Pompeii he seems to be a good source on the matters, however I understood from this book he hasn't as sympathetic in approach to the subject in this book The Man Himself Constantine The Great, he quotes both Sympathetic and Hostile writers on the Man that is both Christian Sources(Eusebius) and Pagan writers of the period, but I feel in his tone you can tell he is not a fan Of Constantine so while states he is trying to state a more nuanced picture that is one less biased or neither for or against I believe he sadly fails in doing so. The great about the book besides it's Subject the Man Himself and His accomplishments is the author despite his disdain for Him presents both sides of the coin so to speak and concludes the book the same as he started that seeing the information on him is either for or against there is not much we Know about him.
February 9, 2024
Fascinating book. Well writtten and very informative. The author delivered more than the standard story of Constatine's conversion that we're all familiar with. Unlike the sanitized sterile story taught us in Sunday school and later in confirmation classes this is a story of a real person who had many sides.
The writing is concise and presents evidence from both Pagan and Christian sources. This helps in understanding the world in which Constatine lived. The book moves along at a good pace and does not become bogged down.
The writing is concise and presents evidence from both Pagan and Christian sources. This helps in understanding the world in which Constatine lived. The book moves along at a good pace and does not become bogged down.
October 28, 2024
Enjoyed reading this book .
Provided sumptuous information about Constantine the great based on historical artifacts .
Fascinating to read about a man who was famously known for shaping the second age of missionary evangelism after Paul himself .
“It is to dreams , that the majority of humankind owe their knowledge of God “ wrote Tertullian .
There is a lot of information on Constantines vision or dream of the sign of the cross of light the various interpretations and Constantine’s own journey and view of his faith.
The formation of the First Council of Nicaea , the formation the Nicene creed after various discussions and opposition.
A great book to have in ones personal collection .
There is also a lot of information about the social reforms he brought about like abolishing gladiator shows and also abolishing crucifixion as a penalty .
Provided sumptuous information about Constantine the great based on historical artifacts .
Fascinating to read about a man who was famously known for shaping the second age of missionary evangelism after Paul himself .
“It is to dreams , that the majority of humankind owe their knowledge of God “ wrote Tertullian .
There is a lot of information on Constantines vision or dream of the sign of the cross of light the various interpretations and Constantine’s own journey and view of his faith.
The formation of the First Council of Nicaea , the formation the Nicene creed after various discussions and opposition.
A great book to have in ones personal collection .
There is also a lot of information about the social reforms he brought about like abolishing gladiator shows and also abolishing crucifixion as a penalty .
May 1, 2024
To cut a long story short, Michael Grant doesn't like Constantine. Rightly or wrongly, the author keeps any positive thoughts to a minimum. Having said that, the biography is readable and not too stodgy, but I'd recommend doing independent reading around the subject to form a more rounded opinion of Constantine the Great.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 16, 2022
A definite read for any numismatist collecting Constantinian era coins. Beyond that, the history is presented in an honest and clear way, since shortfalls of other kinds of accounts and inherent biases are mentioned. Grant’s work is excellent depending on the topic
July 13, 2025
Of all the bios I’ve read and all the Christian history I’ve read, this book is far down the list of 1. Helpful and 2. Well written. This book meanders in unhelpful ways. I would not recommend this book.
Want to read
December 29, 2016I registered a book at BookCrossing.com!
http://www.BookCrossing.com/journal/14340385
http://www.BookCrossing.com/journal/14340385
November 30, 2020
Very dry and challenging to read - some well-thought points, but much that was simply repetitive.
May 1, 2022
A nice short overview of Constantine the Great. I found the chapters sorted by themes rather that chronologically very refreshing
May 14, 2022
A somewhat dry read, but it's a comprehensive and scholarly biography on Constantine. Michael Grant gives a good overview of Constantine's military campaigns, administrative reforms, his establishing of Constantinople, great construction projects, and most importantly his relations with Christianity. Grant also doesn't whitewash Constantine's darker side by covering the more negative aspects of his reign especially with how Constantine dealt with his eldest son Crispus and wife Fausta.
January 6, 2023
Interesting look. Looks of conjecture
March 6, 2025
Grant is a solid resource as an entrance to the subject of antiquity for any beginning student. His books are a great primer and give you a helpful outline to fill in with longer and more detailed works.
April 25, 2015
Constantine the Great. What can I say that already isn't in the title. I have a passionate love for learning about the Roman Empire. Nothing make me sadder than reading about the barbarian incursions on the Empire's northern frontier while the threat in the East continues to grow against Constantinople. A tragedy every time I read about the civil wars after the retirement of Diocletian leading to the sole rule of Constantine. In his greatest hours he sowed the seeds of the destruction of the Western Empire. The first Christian monarch, while all powerful, could not bring the Arian Christians into line with the rest of Christianity...leading to punitive measure against those deemed heretic, providing a precedent for wars and inquisitions against those who would be labeled heretic in the future. He created consolidated an empire but weakened it. He ensured the western empire would long outlive him until 1453 at the expense of the west. He recruited heavily in the Germanic tribes making Germans comfortable commanding the Roman armies, too comfortable. Rome remained Roman only for about 100 years after his death, yet Byzantium grew powerful due to his efforts. All Roman Empire lovers should read this one.
February 22, 2021
Constantine was the first Catholic Emperor in Rome's History. He conquered many people because he believed that God was on his side. Constantine enacted administrative, financial, social and military reforms to strengthen the empire. He restructured the government, he also introduced new gold coin that became the standard for Byzantine and European currencies for more than a thousand years.
The Roman army was reorganized to consist of mobile units, and garrison troops capable of countering internal threats and barbarian invasions.
Constantine had conquered the Franks, the Alamanni, the Goths and the Sarmatians. He introduced Catholicism to his conquered lands leaving a mostly Catholic Europe in his wake.
The Roman army was reorganized to consist of mobile units, and garrison troops capable of countering internal threats and barbarian invasions.
Constantine had conquered the Franks, the Alamanni, the Goths and the Sarmatians. He introduced Catholicism to his conquered lands leaving a mostly Catholic Europe in his wake.
June 10, 2016
I read this over a period of many years, but overall it gave some interesting history and background to an important person in history. I mostly appreciated the chapters on Constantine and the Christian God and Church, the story of his conversion, and found interesting how many churches he (and his mother Helena) built.
December 27, 2013
Very dry from the very beginning with an opening chapter on sources. Who starts a biography of a roman emperor who most readers will know very little about already with a chapter on that? The writing style is dry and turgid.
December 14, 2016
This took a long time since I read it only when charging my nook. A bit dry in parts, but that's history. Grant focused more on the battles and victories, and not so much on the expansion of Christianity.
October 28, 2008
I really tried to get into this book, but finally gave up halfway through.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews