Blog Tour - Gods of Rome

I am participating in the upcoming Blog Tour for "Gods of Rome" by Gordon Doherty & Simon Turney. "Gods of Rome" is the final part of the story of Constantine the Great and Maxentius.

Gods of Rome

For one to rule, the other must die.

312 AD is a year of horrific and brutal warfare. Constantine's northern army is a small force, plagued by religious rivalries, but seemingly unstoppable as they invade Maxentius' Italian heartlands. These relentless clashes, incidents of treachery and twists of fortune see Maxentius' armies driven back to Rome.

Constantine has his prize in sight, yet his army is diminished and on the verge of revolt. Maxentius meanwhile works to calm a restive and dissenting Roman populace. When the two forces clash in the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, there are factors at work beyond their control and soon they are left with carnage.

There is only one way Constantine and Maxentius' rivalry will end. With one on a bloodied sword and the other the sole ruler of Rome...

My review here >>> Gods of Rome

Masters of Rome

Their rivalry will change the world forever.

As competition for the imperial throne intensifies, Constantine and Maxentius realise their childhood friendship cannot last. Each man struggles to control their respective quadrant of empire, battered by currents of politics, religion and personal tragedy, threatened by barbarian forces and enemies within.

With their positions becoming at once stronger and more troubled, the strained threads of their friendship begin to unravel. Unfortunate words and misunderstandings finally sever their ties, leaving them as bitter opponents in the greatest game of all, with the throne of Rome the prize.

It is a matter that can only be settled by outright war..

My review here >>> Masters of Rome

Sons of Rome

Four Emperors. Two Friends. One Destiny.

As twilight descends on the 3rd century AD, the Roman Empire is but a shadow of its former self. Decades of usurping emperors, splinter kingdoms and savage wars have left the people beleaguered, the armies weary and the future uncertain. And into this chaos Emperor Diocletian steps, reforming the succession to allow for not one emperor to rule the world, but four.

Meanwhile, two boys share a chance meeting in the great city of Treverorum as Diocletian's dream is announced to the imperial court. Throughout the years that follow, they share heartbreak and glory as that dream sours and the empire endures an era of tyranny and dread. Their lives are inextricably linked, their destinies ever-converging as they rise through Rome's savage stations, to the zenith of empire. For Constantine and Maxentius, the purple robes beckon...

My review here >>> Sons of Rome

Review: Gods of Rome by Simon Turney & Gordon Doherty

Synopsis: For one to rule, the other must die.

312 AD is a year of horrific and brutal warfare. Constantine's northern army is a small force, plagued by religious rivalries, but seemingly unstoppable as they invade Maxentius' Italian heartlands. These relentless clashes, incidents of treachery and twists of fortune see Maxentius' armies driven back to Rome.

Constantine has his prize in sight, yet his army is diminished and on the verge of revolt. Maxentius meanwhile works to calm a restive and dissenting Roman populace. When the two forces clash in the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, there are factors at work beyond their control and soon they are left with carnage.

There is only one way Constantine and Maxentius' rivalry will end. With one on a bloodied sword and the other the sole ruler of Rome...

So, this latest follows on from the first two in the Rise of Emperors series in which two friends, now rivals, meet in the ultimate battle for Rome. As Edward Gibbon in his "The Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire" states: "... though the characters of Constantine and Maxentius had very little affinity with each other, their situation and interest were the same ...... " - and that interest was Rome.

Gibbon further waxes lyrical on the virtues of Constantine over the vices of Maxentius, writing that "... though Constantine might view the conduct of Maxentius with abhorrence, and the situation of the Romans with compassion, we have no reason to presume that he would have taken up arms to punish the one or to relieve the other ..."

History is written by the victors, and the accounts are heavily one-sided in favour of Constantine, and by 312 (when our story opens), Constantine and Maxentius were engaged in open hostility with one another, although they were brothers-in‑law through Constantine's marriage to Fausta, sister of Maxentius. 

Many reasons are thrown about - Gibbon himself talks about some slight inflicted upon the statues of Constantine by Maxentius, whereupon: " ... Constantine no longer hesitated. He had deliberated with caution, he acted with vigour. He gave a private audience to the ambassadors who, in the name of the senate and people, conjured him to deliver Rome from a detested tyrant; and, without regarding the timid remonstrances of his council, he resolved to prevent the enemy, and to carry the war into the heart of Italy. ..."

And so it was that in the spring of 312, Constantine gathered an army and decided to oust Maxentius himself. He easily overran northern Italy, winning two major battles: the first near Turin, the second at Verona.  Upon hearing the news of Constantine's approach, Maxentius chose to make his stand in front of the Milvian Bridge.  Holding it was crucial if Maxentius was to keep his rival out of Rome.  Here history is a little blurred - Maxentius had probably partially destroyed the bridge during his preparations for a siege for he had a wooden or pontoon bridge constructed to get his army across the river, which he would then use to cut off Constantine's advance should that prove necessary.

As the battle turned, Maxentius decided to order a retreat, intending to make another stand at Rome itself. However, there was only one escape route - the pontoon bridge. Constantine's men inflicted heavy losses on the retreating army.  But we know the outcome of this battle - Constantine was the victor, whilst Maxentius was among the dead.  The battle gave Constantine undisputed control of the western half of the Roman Empire.

Whilst the focus of this narrative is on that fateful year of 312, there is still plenty going on, and despite the known outcome, you still can't help but hope that the underdog will triumph.

Neither man is hero or villain. Unlike the sources from this period, which reflect the propaganda of Constantine and present Maxentius as a brutal tyrant, authors Turney & Doherty provide a carefully constructed, and fluid narrative from the viewpoint of both. 

And as the reader progresses through the alternating narrative, you soon realise that both men share more in common than one would expect - both are beset by fractious factions within their support networks; both look to signs, omens and prophecies; both are surrounded by traitors, dissemblers and deceivers, religious discontents, and angry wives.

The authors' notes at the end provide a neat wrap up to this well researched and written series.

read more here:

Edward Gibbon: Chapter 14 - The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

Eusebius of Caesarea - Vita Constantine 

Review: Masters of Rome by Gordon Doherty & Simon Turney

Synopsis: Their rivalry will change the world forever.

As competition for the imperial throne intensifies, Constantine and Maxentius realise their childhood friendship cannot last. Each man struggles to control their respective quadrant of empire, battered by currents of politics, religion and personal tragedy, threatened by barbarian forces and enemies within.

With their positions becoming at once stronger and more troubled, the strained threads of their friendship begin to unravel. Unfortunate words and misunderstandings finally sever their ties, leaving them as bitter opponents in the greatest game of all, with the throne of Rome the prize.

It is a matter that can only be settled by outright war...

Book 2 in this series of the epic battle between Constantine and Maxentius for supremacy in Rome continues where Sons of Rome left off - 308AD and continues up to 312AD. Each man's story is again narrated by a single author, with an alternating overall narrative so that we get a sense of what is happening to both concurrently.

No spoilers here as events are well known - however the journey taken to get there is as thrilling and fresh as if it happened yesterday. It is not an easy journey for either man - both face the constant struggle to maintain their positions, both within and without the Roman Empire as territories are won and lost; there is personal tragedy and a deterioration of their fragile friendship; and religious dissent is on the rise as the supporters of Christ demand more freedom of worship; and add into the mix, the rise of rival contenders.

Though the more I read - and for me Constantine was ever present in my mind - the more I felt an empathy towards Maxentius. I was more drawn to his plight than his nemesis, for many of his deeds and achievements have latterly gone unrecognised. Maybe it has something to do with the way we like to support the underdog against an obviously stronger, experienced opponent. Maybe, it is just my knowing the outcome that has drawn me closer to getting to know this man more.

The final showdown take's place in book 3 for ".... it is in battle that this will end for one ..."

The struggle between Constantine and Maxentius is the only Roman civil war to be depicted on a monument and can be seen in the relief sculptures on the Arch for Constantine.

The Fall of the Roman Empire by Peter Heather

The death of the Roman Empire is one of the perennial mysteries of world history. Now, in this groundbreaking book, Peter Heather proposes a stunning new solution: Centuries of imperialism turned the neighbors Rome called barbarians into an enemy capable of dismantling an Empire that had dominated their lives for so long.

A leading authority on the late Roman Empire and on the barbarians, Heather relates the extraordinary story of how Europe's barbarians, transformed by centuries of contact with Rome on every possible level, eventually pulled the empire apart. He shows first how the Huns overturned the existing strategic balance of power on Rome's European frontiers, to force the Goths and others to seek refuge inside the Empire. This prompted two generations of struggle, during which new barbarian coalitions, formed in response to Roman hostility, brought the Roman west to its knees. 

The Goths first destroyed a Roman army at the battle of Hadrianople in 378, and went on to sack Rome in 410. The Vandals spread devastation in Gaul and Spain, before conquering North Africa, the breadbasket of the Western Empire, in 439. We then meet Attila the Hun, whose reign of terror swept from Constantinople to Paris, but whose death in 453 ironically precipitated a final desperate phase of Roman collapse, culminating in the Vandals' defeat of the massive Byzantine Armada: the west's last chance for survival.

Peter Heather convincingly argues that the Roman Empire was not on the brink of social or moral collapse. What brought it to an end were the barbarians.

Review - Blood of Kings by MK Hume

Roman Briton - 4th century AD - two very different men with one goal - unification.

This is a re-telling of "The Dream of Mascin Wledig" - the tale of Roman General Flavius Maximus and Caradoc, King of the Dumnonii. Maximus would be the first High King of Briton and Emperor of Rome, whilst Caradoc would be his regent in Briton.

The story is well researched; the characters are introduced and brought to life; the scene is well set; and Dark Age Briton is brought into the light.

Definitely well worth the read, especially for those with an interest in this period of history.

further reading:

• The Poisoned Throne
• The Emperor's Blood
• The Wolf of Midnight

Book review: Roman burial art reveals forgotten women of Christianity

From National Catholic Reporter:

Is there such a thing as reverent glee? If so, then that's how I would have described St. Joseph Sr. Christine Schenk as she bounded among the ruins of ancient Cenchreae, the location of the house church of the deacon Phoebe during a travel program I led. There is something about standing in the place mentioned in our Scriptures that stirs us, and reminds us that our ancestors in the faith were real, historical folks. In this case, a first-century woman whom the Apostle Paul called "our sister, who is [also] a diakonos of the church at Cenchreae" (Romans 16:1).

It is this sense of immediacy that permeates Crispina and Her Sisters: Women and Authority in Early Christianity. This connection across the expanse of time makes what could have been a recitation of dusty facts into an engaging read.

While her work makes a valuable contribution to the conversation about women's authority roles within the early church, Crispina and Her Sisters does a mitzvah for academics who investigate early Christian burial practices. Schenk analyzed 2,119 images and descriptors of sarcophagi (stone coffins) and fragments from the third to fifth centuries — "all currently available images of Christian sarcophagi and loculus plates" — focusing on the portraits and their accompanying iconography.

The Darkening Age by Catherine Nixey

From Financial Times:

Palmyra, Syria. “The destroyers came from out of the desert . . . and utter destruction followed.” Wearing beards and dressed in black, the religious zealots entered the temple and attacked the statue of the goddess Athena. When they were done, “they melted out once again into the desert. Behind them the temple fell silent.” 

With this nifty, cinematic opening Catherine Nixey draws an equivalence between today’s Islamic extremists and vicious bands of Christian thugs in 385AD. Her aim is to tell the “unknown” story, as she puts it, of the collapse of late Hellenic and Roman antiquity, thereby exposing the truth about the inherent violence and ignorance of early Christianity. As she puts it: “The story of Christianity’s good works in this period has been told again and again . . . The history and sufferings of those whom Christianity defeated have not been.”

read more here @ Financial Times and @ The Guardian

Review: The Pilgrim by Davis Bunn

Abandoned by her husband and in danger because of her faith, Empress Helena embarks on a perilous pilgrimage from Caesarea to Judea. Although she encounters friends and foes alike in her travels, miracles follow her. Join her as she wins hearts for God and discovers the true cross of Christ!

Empress Helena was a woman who life would forever be linked with the Holy Land and the Crucifixion, in the sense that she reputedly discovered the True Cross.

Helena's life had humble, if not slightly seedy beginnings as one of her father's "supplementary amenities" at his drinking establishment in Bithyna (Asia Minor). She married well - Constantius, a man on the make under Emperor Aurelian - how they met is speculative. However, she was a "first wife" - when abandoned (c.289) in favour of a younger woman who provided the basis for a politically advantageous - though short-lived - marriage for her former husband, who by now had risen to the rank of Emperor (dc.306). 

With the enthronement of her son Constantine as Emperor (306), Helena returns to imperial court life - but there can only be one Imperial First Lady, and Helena had a distinct dislike for her daughter-in-law Fausta - the daughter of Maximus, whose stepdaughter Theodora, stole her husband so many years ago.

With the new religion of Christianity now the "official" court religion, Helena embarks upon a pilgrimage to Jerusalem (326 - 328) - she is by now a passionate convert to Christianity, and her pilgrimage is ostensibly a tour of the principal shrines. And yet, whilst in the Holy Land, Helena was said to have unearthed the True Cross, part of which she sent back to her son - the Emperor Constantine - in Rome, along with other relics of the Passion. Her finds were endorse by her son, who order the construction of a church to house them - the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.

Helena's was, in fact, one of the first recorded Christian pilgrimages - and I guess you could say she was also one of the first documented archaeologists. 

So, knowing so much, I was looking forward to reading Bunn's novel on Helena. Its short - less than 200 pages - but it certainly packs a lot into those pages. Helena's story is spell-binding - you are captivated by her courage, you endure her hardships and struggles, and celebrate her triumphs. A reader can easily posit themselves in Helena's shoes (or rather, sandals). The reader never loses interest - and Helena's story, courtesy of Davis Bunn's, still resonates long after it is finished.  I read this back in August 2015 - and the story is as fresh in my mind today as if I had just set it aside.