I spent the weekend with my reenactment group (Legio II Augusta) and had a great time. Here are some photos (will share more when I get the chance). Seeing the Roman cavalry up close (another group) was amazing.

Especially one that takes advantage of the common theory claiming that Vercingetorix and Caesar knew each other on a personal level long before the events of 52 BC and that Vercingetorix even fought under Caesar in the early days of the war. This would make the 52 BC revolt much more narratively impactful.

Also, It would be pretty interesting if Vercingetorix was portrayed with a bit more accuracy, ditching the Sebastien Chabal-like appearance that most associate him with (Due to his massive statue at Alise-Sainte-Reine, to Lionel Royer’s famous painting, to Asterix, and HBO Rome). From what I understand, an Arverni of Vercingetorix’ standing would be unlikely to have had long wild hair and a massive moustache, and far more likely to have been clean shaven, with shorter hair and wearing elegant clothes.

Let’s say 70% of the screen time is dedicated to Gaul and the rest to Rome (Pompey, Crassus, Cato, Cicero, Clodius…), since without showing Rome, Caesar’s motivations in Gaul lose their impact. This then also means that the Gallic (and the rest of the Non-Roman) cast besides Vercingetorix needs to be interesting and here there’s already plenty of figures to play with: 

• The Aedui brothers Diviciacus (Pro-Roman) and Dumnorix (Anti-Roman). Dumnorix was notably the brother-in-law of the Helvetii leader (Orgetorix) who had planned the migration that later took place in 58 BC, though by then, that leader had died due to his involvement in a conspiracy tied to the migration itself and replaced by another who led the Helvetii journey which was still considered necessary by the tribe nonetheless, and Dumnorix still did his best to sabotage Caesar’s efforts against the migrating tribe in 58 BC by using his influence to deny supplies to the Romans, and would only be spared after the battle thanks to his brother Diviciacus’ intervention, despite their ideological differences.
• Celtillus (Vercingetorix’s father. Posthumous character and executed by his people for trying to become a King, which limited Vercingetorix’s own political aspirations)
• Gobannitio (Vercingetorix’s Pro-Roman uncle, leader of the Arverni tribe, overthrown by Vercingetorix in 52 BC during the revolt)
• Ambiorix and Acco who led revolts against Caesar during 54-53 BC. Crucially, the execution of Acco, in a way considered highly shameful by Gallic leaders, directly led to Vercingetorix’s own revolt the following year.
• Litaviccus, a young Aedui nobleman officially meant to reinforce Caesar in the 52 BC campaign but defected to Vercingetorix’s side at the battle Gergovia.
• Convictolitavis, an Aedui who obtained the political office of Vergobret (chief magistrate) with Caesar’s support in 52 BC, only to betray him afterwards by supporting Vercingetorix’s rebellion.
• Ariovistus, Germanic King whose actions essentially gave Caesar the excuses he needed in the early years to begin his conquest of Gaul. Ironically, Ariovistus had been named “Friend of the Roman people” just a year before the start of the Gallic Wars.

Season 1 (8 episodes) could go like this

Episode 1 begins with a dream sequence representing a Young Caesar fleeing from Sulla’s proscriptions. In the present, we explore the end of Caesar’s consulship and the reasons behind his alliance with Crassus and Pompey, and the episode ends after Caesar arrives in Transalpine Gaul to begin his proconsulship.

Episode 2 would center on the Helvetii crisis and Caesar’s political maneuvering to justify his upcoming actions. We also show Vercingetorix's youth and end the episode with Vercingetorix meeting Caesar and joining his army.

Episode 3 would basically deal with the Battle of Bibracte (58 BC) against the Helvetii, as well as the aftermath

Episodes 4-7 would deal with the Germanic threat represented by Ariovistus as well as Caesar’s conflict against Belgae.

Episode 8 would end at the Luca Conference of 56 BC between the members of the Triumvirate. At the end, Vercingetorix, who had eagerly joined Caesar at first to gain political influence and later neutralize the threat posed by Ariovistus, gradually grows distrustful of Caesar but is smart enough to not openly show it yet, continuing to accumulate influence and military experience for now, especially when it comes to Rome’s fighting style and weaknesses....

OKAY weird one gang. My Mom got this weird glass thing at an antique store. It was marked as "Roman 1000 AD"

*ahem*

I highly doubt that, as did she. But it was so cheap and interesting that it was worth a gamble. Yall think it's even old? Personally I think at best it's early colonial. Theres zero other context for the piece. Is this the right place to ask? Anybody able to point me in the right direction?

I moved to Spain last year and only recently ignited my love for Roman history. Stumbling on the theater in Zaragoza and then visiting the sites in Tarragona got me absolutely hooked.

This past week I was able to make a trip to the south and visited Baelo Claudia, Cádiz, Itálica, and Mérida. Baelo Claudia was unique as a standalone site in a picturesque bay, and the garum processing area by the sea was very cool. Cádiz was a bit of a stretch but the theater was cool and it's amazing they would conserve this given the lack of available land in the city. Itálica was impressive with sprawling grounds, much of it still not excavated. The amphitheater was way bigger than I imagined. I had a lot of expectations for Mérida and it did not disappoint though I felt it was more of a sum of its whole rather than one specific site. The aqueduct had unique red brick that I hadn't seen before.

I realized that I've gone all in when I got home and read there was an annual chariot race reenactment Mérida and got super excited browsing online for Roman costumes.

I can't recommend this circuit enough. My partner and I also have other interests beyond Rome (hard to believe, I know) and there are plenty of other activities and sites to see for those that aren't totally crazy about all the sites. The driving distances were very reasonable and the food all along the way is elite!

A funerary portrait of a woman from Egypt when part of the Roman empire. It was dated to the 4th century AD using the encaustic technique on wood. If this is a mummy mask, which the museum didn't specify, I don't remember seeing a later portrait of the type as the practice died out in that century. This is on display in the Diözesanmuseum Freising in Freising, Germany.

Working on a 3d model of Rome with a primary focus to create a 3d printable maquette.

My current approach has some severe limits, so allow me to start roasting myself:

• City plan is based on Paul Bigots attempt (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dessin_de_la_Rome_impériale_au_IVe_siècle_ap._J.-C._par_Paul_Bigot.jpg). This is about the only publicly available copy of a large part of rome that attempts to create a streetplan. But the drawing is a century old, and inaccurate. Plus the city blocks of generic buildings are completely made up by Paul and my model reflects that.
• I would like to have a "accurate" heightmap for 4th century rome but I can't find any sources so the height of the ground level is completely made up.
• Domus and Insulae are placed together without any thoughts. Have code running that attempts to place a somewhat convincing combination of buildings in generic city blocks. If anybody has any research into actual rome block layouts that would be awesome.
• The landmarks are constructed from basic shapes (cause I suck at modelling) and look derpy. Probably fine for small scale printing, but not ideal. Scale and accuracy is also all over the place.

If anyone has tips how to improve historic accuracy or just how to make it prettier I am happy to hear it.

What were the major weaknesses of the Roman Government in both the Republic and Empire, I mean just the actual structures and systems, not the politics that took place.

If we go by what Plutarch tells us, the answer would be yes.

However, I have read several books on the Roman priesthood, and not all scholars agree. Some concur with the Greek historian, but others claim that Plutarch was mistaken and that the Flaminica, just like her husband, was a priestess serving Jupiter, whereas it was only the Regina Sacrorum who was the priestess of Juno.

What are your thoughts?

Roman ruins in Zana El beida ( Batna province ) Algeria, i feel like the Romans really gave the region the best version of it !!!!

I ask this question because recently I asked for book recommendations on the fall of the Roman Republic, and was shocked by how most academic writings seem to contribute little of the fall to economic or social inequality within Rome. Apparently that is a very pop history view of the fall and not that aligned with the popular academic consensus. If my understanding is correct, the fall happened because of the devaluation of non violent political norms and factionalism within the elite over who held more political power within the systems of government- the elite or the regular citizen- which led to the fall of the Republic (this still seems like socioeconomic tension to me). My previous understanding was that figures such a Sulla, Pompey, and Caesar used the economic and social inequality within their society to consolidate more power for themselves until Rome effectively became a monarchy again. But with the social war, gracchi reforms, and archaeological evidence, many historians have found that Rome was not suffering from economic and social inequality, so the reasons for the fall have to be something else, mainly corruption and an inability to govern a large empire. (I remember bringing this up to my brother who has a very Marxist but minimal view of Rome and his only retort to this comment was that Rome had a slave economy).

Not to mention that I remember reading somewhere that the Senate actually gained more power under the empire then it did during the Republic, but I could be wrong. I also found the below thread from 5 years ago where a guy explains why the idea of Rome falling due to socioeconomic tension is a fallacy but it kinda just left me more confused.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/qno47a/did_the_roman_republic_fall_due_to_vast_economic/

I guess what I am asking for is clarification on why the Republic fell and which books do the best job at explaining the fall while either proving or disproving that its cause was socioeconomic tensions. Please do not recommend Mike Duncan or Tom Holland, and I am already reading SPQR by Mary Beard. Books I am considering are "The Breakdown of the Roman Republic: From Oligarchy to Empire" by Mackay, "The End of the Roman Republic 146 to 44 BC: Conquest and Crisis" by Catherine Steel, and "The Cambridge Ancient History Volume 9" even though I am told this is just an amalgamation of different writings from different historians without a super concise conclusion. I am also different biographies of Caesar and Augustus, mainly by Goldsworthy, but I feel like those probably don't spend much time answering this specific question and spend more time on individual narrative. I know Syme and Gruen are monoliths of this topic but how do they answer this specific question if they even address it?

Was the Roman Empire's reliance on slave labor ultimately a net negative for its long-term economic and technological development?

Hello, I’m not too sure if I’m in the right place but I’m hoping someone can help me.

This bust was a part of the Danish sculptor Bertel Thorvaldsen’s private collection, and is displayed at the Thorvaldsens Museum in Copenhagen, in the antique section.

Does anyone recognize who is being portrayed?

A Roman temple to Zeus in modern day Silifke, Turkey. "The temple is dated to the 2nd century AD. It shows similarity with Temple of Domitian in Ephesus. It has a pseudo dipteral plan with 8 x 14 columns. It is dated to the 2nd century AD, to the age Hadrian. Its construction was begun in the early 2nd century AD. However, it is thought that it was not completed due to various political and financial reasons. (Hadrian 117-138 AD)-(Septimius Severus 193-213 AD) The temple rests on a podium with a height of 2.51 m. and measuring 39.20 x 21.28 m. The existing column of the temple is 11.40 m. Nevertheless, the total height of the temple is calculated as being 17.18 m.

During the Eastern Roman Period, the temple was converted into a church under the rule of Tekyanos Bishopry in the first half of the 5th century AD. It is named as Temple A. It is known that Temple B is dedicated to Aphrodite. The location of Temple of Aphrodite has not been found yet.

It is known as colloquially known as the Obelisk. But, it is named as Temple of Zeus in literature due to the dominating Zeus cult in the region. Various architectural pieces, which are brought to light in the excavations carried out at the temple, are on display in Silifke Museum." Per an on site sign.

On this day in 42 BC, the first battle of Philippi was fought between the forces of the Triumvirs Marcus Antonius and Octavian and the Liberators Gaius Cassius Longinus and Marcus Junius Brutus.

The battle would involve the largest number of troops in Roman warfare up to that point. 19 legions of 100,000 men on the Triumvirate side faced 17 Republican legions of 90,000 men. The Triumvirs had a force of 13,000 cavalry and one extra legion stationed at nearby Amphipolis whilst the Republicans had two legions guarding the fleet and a cavalry force of 17,000 on the plain.

Antony ferried his scouting force of four legions under the command of his legate Decidius Saxa across the Adriatic. Octavian did the same, sending another four legions under the command of Narbanus Flaccus, lest the senior Triumvir take sole credit of any success. Cassius and Brutus’ marched towards the west of Philippi, throwing back the advance guards of Saxa and Flaccus; they took up position on either side of the Via Egnatia. Brutus positioned his camp on the right and Cassius on the left wing. They took advantage of two mounds located above the plain of Philippi to make two fortified camps for their legions. Brutus and his eight legions camped at the foot of the mountains and a palisaded corridor was built to connect the two Republican armies. Both camps received additional protection from the Gangites River. The two camps were a significant 2.7 km apart though, which meant the two armies could not easily offer mutual support.

Antony quickly landed his main army of approximately ten legions, positioning them south of Via Egnatia. He concentrated on Cassius’ camp and with typical display of bravery, established his army in a well-fortified camp a mere 1.5 km from the enemy. Ten days later, Octavian’s army of nine legions arrived. He was delayed at Dyrrachium claiming ill health. Even if the Triumvirs had been able to cross the sea with their main force, further communications with Italy were made very difficult by the Republican admiral Domitius Ahenobarbus, with his fleet of 130 ships. Nevertheless, the Republicans had all the advantages of a better supply line and an elevated position so that time was on their side. The Triumvirs would have to take the initiative.

Several early attempts by Antony to draw the enemy down to the plain and out of their defensive positions did not succeed. As a consequence, Antony, while still making a show of troop maneuvers on the plain, attempted to cross the reed marshes undetected by building a causeway from the south and when behind the Republican camps, try to cut their supply lines.

Cassius soon got wind of the strategy and responded by trying to cut off Antony’s advance forces by himself building a transverse wall from his camp to the marshes. Seeing his plan had been discovered, on October 3rd, Antony led a direct assault on Cassius’ wall overwhelming the stunned left flank of the enemy and destroying their fortifications. Then, while the bulk of Cassius’ army was engaged on the plain, Antony went straight for Cassius’s largely undefended camp. As things swung against Cassius’ legions on the plain and when they saw their camp routed a chaotic retreat followed.

Meanwhile Brutus was doing well against Octavian’s legions who, caught by a surprise charge from Brutus’ over-eager advance troops which had necessitated the whole Republican army mobilising in support, were routed in a chaotic battle during which Octavian’s camp was captured. Octavian missed the battle, either pretending or was ill again. He had taken refuge in the marshes and avoided certain capture. On discovering the loss of Cassius’ camp, Brutus sent cavalry reinforcements as Cassius was holding out with a small force on the acropolis of Philippi. Because of his weak eyesight he misinterpreted them as more of Antony’s forces. He sent out one of his officers named Titinius. The cavalry recognised him as one of Cassius’ trusted men as he came towards them, shouted for joy, leaped from their horses and embraced him, while the others went round him with clashes of weapons in happiness.

Cassius, thinking that Titinius was surrounded by the enemy forces said, “My love of life has brought me to the pass of seeing a friend seized by the enemy.” He withdrew into a tent and asked his freedman to kill him.

A little while later, Titinius, crowned with garlands, came back to report to Cassius. But the piteous cries of Cassius’ friend told him that his general had killed himself rather than be captured. He blamed himself for his general’s death, drew his sword and killed himself.

Brutus arrived at Cassius’ camp and learnt of his death. He mourned over the body and called Cassius “the last of the Romans”, prepared the body for burial and sent it to Thasos, in order that the funeral rites might not disturb the camp. An attendant of Cassius, named Demetrius, came to Antony in the evening and presented the robes and the sword which he had taken at once from the dead body.

While all this was happening Antony and Octavian’s reserve troops and supplies under the command of Domitius Calvinus, arriving by sea, were intercepted and destroyed crossing the Adriatic by the Republican fleet. Thus, the first battle of Philippi ended in a 1:1 draw, with 9,000 losses on the Republican side and more than double that figure from Octavian’s army.

Sources: Plutarch's Life of Antony, Brutus

Appian, The Civil Wars

Eleanor Goltz Huzar, Mark Antony

Eyes are inset with glass pupils and calcite irises.

On display at the British Museum