What this leaves out is how Millar writes an essay on how to do Roman history from below, and indirectly (e.g. from the experience of the Greek cities)-- a paradox when starting with the man at the top. Millar's intro. on M Aurelius at Sirmium packs a hell of a punch. 1/ https://twitter.com/wmarybeard/status/1285991829872300035

The exhilarating, liberating element is how Millar's "good positivism" (to borrow a concept from P. Veyne) sweeps out what had taken place before, e.g. imperial personalities or "imperial policy" as centre-pieces of hsitory-- in favour of a structural model 2/

as Millar had pointed this out to annoy Finley. It's a very tightly woven book-- but also full of the sense of texture of evidence. Read it ! It's a really good piece of history writing. 3/

Critiques that would be worth bringing to the table: the possibility of imperial reactions following policy or principles; the problem that Millar's choice of sticking close to the evidence articulates the subjects' view of empire (as reactive). 4/

But it's also and already a great book on the Greek city, on the Jews, and Late Antiquity-- as well as the Roman emperor in his world. end/

It's also a great book to mine-- e.g. how did Roman emperors treat madmen, when families approached them ? What did they do with gifts ? The problem is that the index isn't that helpful.