Although the pictorial collage of the book was well put together, I felt that the quility of information was below my standards. I did not enjoy reading the book, and it seemed more like a story book for children then a guide book of the forum for adults. I gained no knowledge from it that i didn't already know from everyday life, and I was unimpressed by the text.

I think this book, is very wonderful. If you need some information about him, or just want to study about him this is the book for it. This BOOK is very GOOd.

....though I am a big Grant fan, the reviews here tell it like it is. This book is nothing more than a collection of rehashed paragraphs from his other works. His self plagiarism could be forgiven if the book was a worthwhile one volume reference to key events of this important epoch in Roman history. Alas, it omits key events and figures by the bushel and can be considered nothing more than a collection of half completed notes hastily hurled together for publication. You can learn far more about the "collapse and recovery" by perusing the appropriate entries in Grant's excellent "The Roman Emperors".

Throughout the majority of The Collapse and Recovery of the Roman Empire, Michael Grant makes a valiant effort to examine and interpret this short, but very significant time in history. His text is mainly very well supported, though many times supported by quotations taken from his other books! Though Grant's accounts are interesting and intriguing at times, a tighter conclusion of his thoughts would have definitely have tied the text together. Michael Grant's knowledge is vast, his perceptions are divine, but more should be expected from such a revered and experienced historical author. However, his book, despite its shortcomings, provides a solid foundation for understanding this weak period in Rome's history.

The book taken for what it is--a broad consideration of the topic presented in the form of a brief essay--can only be considered a masterpiece. Now. Be warned. This is just an essay, not a detailed treatment of any particular Imperial device. The emphasis here is not on details of military activity, of social life, of religion. The idea of the book is this: Rome was falling apart in the early third century due to the juxtaposition of many complex factors--porous borders, rigid bureaucracy, weak leadership, factional politics, economic stagnation. Strong emperors, such as Diocletian and Constantine, reversed the trends by recognizing them and instituting reforms that restored the confidence of the citizens and strengthened the Pax Romana. This book is a masterpiece for that simple insight. It is a vivid portrait of how cult of personality, therapeutic politics, popular religion, and self-serving consumer economics can soothe the anxieties of a vast empire otherwise consumed with corruption and ennui. Doesn't this scenario sound familar? Grant's ability to grasp the archetypes amid the chaos is astonishing, and his presentation is lucid and powerfully argued.

When I purchased Saint Peter, I was expecting a fascinating read which would shine light on the better known facets of Peters life, while at the same time revealing little known tidbits of information. To my dismay, I found neither. There was not one item in this book which was new, or a revelation to anyone who is even remotely knowledgeable as to the Saint Peter of the bible. There is no authoritative voice writing this book. There is far too much of a this may have happened, or possibly, or most likely. No This Happened statements. Mr Grant spends far too much of this book putting down religion and miracles. Thus, if you only believe 5% of what is in the bible, do not write a book about someone whom 95% of the source material comes from the biible. Leaving out the lengthy intro, and the footnotes, what you have here is basically a 100 page boring book which shows that Mr Grant is very book smart, but foolish when it comes to interpretive writing concerning religious personages. This book would have been much better had it actually been about Saint Peter, instead of stating on nearly every page how Mr Grant could put no weight or belief behind things religious or spiritial or miraculous in nature.

i think the whole chapter 1 can be shortened quite a bit. I understand the scarcity of reliable sources have to be presented. but it does not need to be so long when it can be said in a paragraph.

later, when he writes on Peter's life, it is full of sentences like "Whether (it) happened or not, we cannot be sure" (substitute "it" with Peter's martyrdom, or Jurusalum council meeting in Acts or Peter's residence in Rome in later days, etc). While I appreciate Grant's effort not to make assertion based on unproven stories, I can just say as much as a layman! duh. even tho very few events can be certain, historians are supposed to make better, educated guess. only the chapters regarding Peter, James & Paul have some meat. however, nothing new is revealed.

Grant also drops casually more than once that there're fragments of early Mark's Gospel, not in its final, cannonical form probably written before the fall of Jerusalam, found in Dead Sea Scrolls since this is new to me, i'm very interested. but he does not show what the fragments are nor does he give any reference. no follow up, no elaboration. What a tease!

Michael Grant's book which attempts to uncover historical details about St. Peter makes modest claims about the touted head of the Christian church. Grant examines the Gospel view of Peter, which is not very flattering. He writes that this view had to do with the Gentile influence. Nevertheless Grant maintains that Peter did lead the early Christians in Jerusalem, although this leadership was short-lived due to what Grant bellieve to be Peter's role as mediator between rival factions. Grant can find little evidence that Peter lived and died in Rome, but he avers that this may be very likely since the tradition concerning it so strong.

While not a long book, St. Peter: A Biography makes a modest proposal that the tradition concerning this Apostle may baasically be historically true.

I enjoy reading Michael Grant's books - in fact, he is one of my favourite authors. In most of his books, he makes history an enjoyable romp, writing books that are engaging and hard to put down.

However, this book is one of the biggest rip-offs I've seen. It has a price from Fantasyland and the text is about as detailed as the leaflets you pick up from a museum. For example, the 'Chapter' on Pagan Temple architecture has a total of 488 words. It has over 100 pages only because there are full-page title-pages introducing each section.

Considering this is supposed to be a book on Roman Art, the text tells you nothing, and the price is so high you think you are getting something of quality, rather than a hardcover museum leaflet. Michael Grant should stick to books on historical figures, (Eg. Nero, Cleopatra etc) and leave Art History to the experts.