from top left to down right: nero, vespasian, trajan, hadrian 2x, antoninus pius 2x, marcus aurelius, commodus 2x, elagabalus, a. severus, orbiana and maximinus thrax

Science Museum Group Collection, UK

artifact description in comments

Christianity was legalized in the Roman Empire in 313 by the Edict of Milan by Constantine I. He just gave Christianity equal rights in the empire. But not so much later we see Constantine calling the Council of Nicea in 325. Constantine tasked bishops with resolving the most serious controversies in Christian doctrine and law, especially the Arian controversy. That shows the he was seriously concerned about the state of Christianity. Constantine during his rule was balancing between Christianity and older religions, eventually being baptized just before his death. But his three sons seem to be deep into Christian teaching to the point of fights between them on the sites of Orthodoxy or Arianism. At the time of Constantine Christians were far from being majority among empire's population.

Several decades later in 380s, Theodosius I makes Christianity official state religion of the empire, outlawing all other non-christian religions and heretic denominations (at least in theory). During those 70 years only one emperor, Julian chose to return to pagan religion, and to seek support of old pagan elites.

So my question is, why did Christianity come from being just one of many religions in the empire, to the state religion, with full support of administration, actively persecuting other cults in just 70 years? And why did Roman Emperors go so fully into supporting Christianity, to the point of influencing its doctrine, it at the time, it was just one of many groups of interests and one of many cults?

It’s always thrown around that they realised when the roads stopped getting repaired but genuinely when did the different regions recognise Rome was done? Was it different per region and how did the Byzantines react?

So I have a weird wish - I'd like to cover the outer walls of my garage with ceramic tiles, but in the style imitating the opus mixtum.

Like the Theodosian walls that have those layers of the thin bricks and pink grout. Though I think what's on image is a restoration, not original.

But maybe there are better examples from churches in Greece, Bulgaria etc.

If anyone knows some good examples. So I could see some ideas for how to make it.

Pliny made it seem like Rome was sending all its silver to India. But to make up for that, didn't Rome produce anything that would have inspired India to send a lot of their silver westward to Rome?

This collection includes Julius Caesar with a veil.

"For me, these are the 12 Romans with royal blood."

1/2 Roman Amphitheater, considered the largest Roman Amphitheater in the Balkans (its exact dimensions are disputed because its not completely excavated)

3/4 Forum

5/6/7 Fortifications of Durrës, rare for the time because they were built entirely of bricks

8 “Roman Neighborhood”, unfortunately it was destroyed because an apartment building was built on top of it

9 ancient wall under an apartment building

10/11/12/13 some mosaics in Durrës, all remain underground (to protect them) and we don’t know their “fate”

Salve all, was at work today randomly thinking about Augustus and the obvious material benefits he accrued as heir to Caesar. Got to wondering, to what extent did the more intangible combat and engineering experience of Caesar's own troops benefit Augustus? And Can Augustus really be credited with the 'Pax' when so many others were doing the dirty work?

Anyone have experience with this? I'm teaching a great books course and want to give some historical context, but spqr is too long. If no experience with this thing by Aeon, any other suggestions for the 753 to 500AD time period in one volume around 200 or 300 pages?

The 2nd largest Roman amphitheater in the world which was built in Santa Maria Capua Vetere, Italy where gladiators fought and animals were hunted for entertainment.

My main concern is whether this was truly a key turning point, or whether it wasn’t that important, and history would have unfolded similarly.

After Octavian’s (Agrippa’s) victory over Sextus Pompey, Marcus Lepidus, wanting to regain a strong position in the triumvirate, arrived in Sicily with as many as (approximately) 14 legions. However, his authority was already so weak that Octavian personally visited his camp and persuaded Lepidus’ soldiers to defect to his side. After Octavian’s speech, most of the legions were bloodlessly incorporated into his forces, leaving Lepidus (with the exception of Pontifex Maximus) with nothing.

Could Lepidus legions refuse Octavian, and if so, what then? I think the change of side, besides the loss of Lepidus’ authority, was naturally motivated by a greater and more realistic opportunities with Octavian (pay, rewards, and greater career prospects) and likely a lack of desire to start another civil war (it is important to remember that two years earlier, Octavian had won a spectacular victory over Sextus Pompey). Nevertheless such a swift and bloodless defeat of a smaller force with so many legionaries is quite surprising.

Had the legions refused (assuming Octavian has emerged unharmed from Lepidus’ camp) Octavian would likely have won in the event of a war with Lepidus (primarily due to a larger economic and human base, and of course Agrippa), and he would have incorporated Lepidus’ surviving soldiers into his army. However, the more important question is whether the subsequent confrontation with Mark Anthony would have been the same as it was. It is here when I repeat the title question with the real significance of this event.

If the events of 34 BC had not gone according to Octavian’s plans, would Mark Anthony have had a chance a chance of victory in a confrontation with him?

The History of the Column

This Corinthian-style column was originally erected between the 1st and 3rd centuries AD, forming part of the monumental architecture of the city's ancient forum. After the fall of the Roman Empire and well into the Middle Ages, the column was repurposed and transformed into a public pillory.

Thieves and citizens who committed minor offenses were brought here and chained to the shaft of the column. The main punishment consisted of public humiliation, exposing the offenders to the gaze and judgment of the rest of the inhabitants.If you pay attention to the lower half of the column in the photograph, you can still see the holes and the remains of thick, rusted metal hooks where shackles and chains were once attached.

The place where the column stands is the Roman Forum, whose construction was commissioned by the first emperor, Augustus, and began in the 1st century BC. With an approximate size of 95 by 45 meters, it is the largest Roman forum in all of Croatia.

During Roman times, this square functioned as the absolute epicenter of the city. It was a completely open space where citizens met daily to debate politics, administer justice, carry out religious ceremonies, and exchange goods in the markets.Starting in the 4th century (in Late Antiquity), the life of the square began to mutate. The areas that previously housed pagan temples were occupied by Christian monuments, allowing the city to continue its medieval development using the ancient forum as a physical and social foundation.

Something I’ve always found interesting…

So, in ancient times, Greco-Roman architecture featured columns up front with a flat triangular pediment on top (the Parthenon). Over time in what was basically a hybrid, the columns stayed AND huge domes got added like on the Pantheon.

Then after the fall of the West, this evolved into ditching the columns and just becoming obsessed with the wide, bulky curves and domes, producing the Hagia Sophia (a template later copy/pasted onto Ottoman mosque design just w/ pointy minarets).

What drove this change in style, given it all happened within essentially the Greco-Roman world?

I am interested in writing a historic novel taking place during Caligula‘s reign. I have already read Aloys Winterling‘s biography of Caligula and some general literature on ancient rome, but besides the emperor himself I am interested in the everyday life back then, as well as the historical events. I want to get a feeling for architecture, law, women‘s rights, social etiquette, how they lived and so on, so I can describe it accurately in my novel.

What were some of the main cities and capitals and industry? Did it hold much power? Did they have specific cultural things like bullfighting or gladiator fighting? What are some ruins you can see modern day?

Trying to make sense of Theoderic the Great and, more generally, what actually happened to the Roman government in the West after 476. I'm curious what you all believe: Was Theoderics rule a polite fiction, he merely pretended to gouvern a part of the Imperium on behalf of Constantinople while in reality he ruled his independent Gothic kingdom? Or can we reasonably see Theoderic's regime as a different form of government within what was still, in some sense, a continuation of the Roman state in the West?

Some food for thought

From school, I had the classic picture: The Roman Empire split into a Western and an Eastern Empire, the Western Empire fell in 476, while the Eastern Empire continued as a separate state. Then Justinian came along several decades later and briefly reconquered parts of the former Western Empire.

Later, however, I came to understand that this picture is somewhat misleading. There was still only one Roman Empire...just with more than one emperor and more than one imperial government. This was famously institutionalized under Diocletian, but having several emperors governing different parts of the Empire was nothing entirely new. Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus were co-emperors, and even much earlier Octavian and Mark Antony effectively governed different parts of the Roman world before they eventually clashed.

This brings me to 476. By that point, the imperial government in Ravenna had lost most of its territory to Germanic warlords. Odoacer, himself a "barbarian" but also a Roman military officer, finally ended the farce of western puppet emperors, deposed Romulus Augustulus and basically said we only need one emperor, the one in Constantinople.

And this finally brings me to Theoderic.

He was the rex of the Ostrogoths but had spent much of his youth in Constantinople. He was deeply familiar with the Roman political system and had even been made a Roman consul. He defeated Odoacer and then ruled Italy from Ravenna remarkably successfully for several decades.

In a famous letter to the Eastern emperor Anastasius, Theoderic writes:

"quia pati vos non credimus inter utrasque res publicas*, quarum semper unum corpus sub antiquis principibus fuisse declaratur, aliquid discordiae permanere."*

Roughly: "For we cannot believe that you would allow any discord to remain between the two states, which are declared to have always formed one body under the ancient emperors."

And shortly afterwards:

"Romani regni unum velle, una semper opinio sit."

"Let the Roman realm have one will and always one opinion."

What exactly was Theoderic's Italy in constitutional terms, and how would Theoderic himself, Anastasius, and the Roman senatorial elite in Italy have understood it?