Hi ,I'm curently working on a song with Roman and ancient aesthetic 100% written in latin! Wanna see it? https://youtube.com/@time_naut?si=nShQPEZG0mS5QPcJ

I'm looking for more in depth info on:

Exploratores Frumentarii Procuratores And Speculatores.

I learned about them for a research project, forgot about them for a long time then found out about them again from watching an Invicta video.

But I'm looking for any other resources that are reputable OTHER than Invicta.

I'm open to really anything about them but I don't know where else to learn about them.

Which early, pagan emperor was the most lenient and friendly towards the fledgling Jesus movement?

I understand that this is fairly loaded question, but I do see more and more how the citizenship becomes more common throughout the whole empire.

Not only was Seneca citizen, but so was Paul of Tarsus.

If I'm not mistaken, I think Justin martyr was also one as well together with Plutarch.

How did each dynasty influence the dissemination of citizenship?

Discuss.

As a child, Caracalla would cry and turn away when he saw criminals fighting beasts. When he heard that his playmate was whipped by his father for practicing Judaism, he refused to speak to his father for a long time. During festivals, he would give the gifts his parents gave him to his servants and teachers. However, the good boy grew up to go mad, making it hard for people to believe he was still the same person whom they had known as a boy.

As a child, Nero was tolerant and generous, kind to others, actively participated in public affairs, and always lowered himself in front of the people. He often trained with soldiers and allowed the public to watch him in the training grounds. He would frequently distribute gifts to the public, including food, clothing, and livestock. When he held gladiatorial games, he ordered that no one should die, even if the fighters were criminals. He prohibited snitching and refused to investigate those who wrote poems attacking him. For those who openly attacked him, he simply had them walk away.

In contrast, twelve-year-old Commodus once ordered the bathhouse manager to be thrown into a furnace and burned to death because the bath water was cold.

I’d say Honorius was probably the worst.He did not give a shit especially when Rome was sacked by the Visigoths in 410 AD. He seemed almost detached from the situation, relying on ineffective advisors while the empire was falling apart. His inability to respond to such a huge crisis made it clear just how much the Western Roman Empire was falling apart under his watch.

What do you think?

Was watching this video and it occurred to me again that Roman cities seemed to be more aesthetical, and more organized than the succeeding italian cities.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnLVndM82zA

There are similarities. Though from the 3D models and reconstructions, which by the way are probably very inaccurate or idealized, it seems the Roman cities were just better.
The Italian cities seem to follow a more chaotic but also organic design, closer to the rest of medieval cities from other European cultures.
But the roman cities just seem so well designed and minimalistic and as if they were actually thought out.
Is this us just idealizing it?

I dont think so. I think after the fall of the Roman empire cities were destroyed or declined. And the what followed was basically medieval style of construction where they built as they needed.

Ancient Rome committed massacres during its expansion, including in regions like Carthage, Britain, Gaul, and Jerusalem, with the destruction of Carthage being the most complete. Ancient Rome also destroyed the Library of Alexandria and the Temple of Jerusalem, causing irreplaceable losses to human civilization. Ancient Rome made Christianity the state religion, persecuting polytheists and no longer allowing other faiths to exist. Furthermore, Ancient Rome declared LGBT practices illegal, becoming the first ancient civilization to officially criminalize LGBT in law.

After Justinian's (re)conquest of Italy, the idea of 'Romaness' in the west rapidly evaporated and so the idea of another Roman restoration died out since there was no 'Romaness' in the west to restore. After Western Rome collapsed, the Romans in Gaul mixed with the Franks, the Romans in Iberia mixed with the Visigoths etc and in the East after the Muslim conquest, Syria quickly become Muslim majority, removing any 'Romaness' from the area, the Balkan slowly became Slavic due to migrations and even Anatolia, the heartland of the Byzantines, became slowly Turkified.

All of this means that, these non-roman cultures would develop to be one that was inherently hostile to the Empire and the never ending wars eventually drain the Empire and weakened their influence. Though there were periods of reconcilliation and peace, once a disaster, civil war or instability strikes the Empire, those non-roman entity would jump in and attack the Empire, further weakening and eventually destroyed them for good in 1453.

Meanwhile, China also had tons of period of disunity and never ending nomadic invasions, there was even 300-year long disunity after the fall of the Han and Jin when Northern China was overrun by nomadic people. Even with 300 years, the nomads were unable to assimilate Northern China and they themselves got assimilated into the Chinese civilization(The Central Plain didn't get Turkicized). This means that the nomads' culture got wiped out, preventing them from becoming an independent state and culture to threaten the rest of China and the very idea of Chinese culture itself

If this were a Roman scenario, Northern China will then be splintered among the various nomadic conquerors and over time, Northern Chinese will stop calling themselves Chinese and more like Chinese-Xiongnu or Chinsese-Mongol etc following the culture of their conquerors. This would left Southern China as 'China' and they would need to contend with the now 'barbarized' Northern China. Whenever the South becomes weak, the various Northerners will take turn invading the south, rinse and repeat until they push all the way to Hong Kong until finally the Chinese Emperor in Hong Kong decided that no Emperor shall outlive his Empire, tear off his dragon robe and charge the invaders as the Empire's last stand.

This scenario wouldn't have happened to the Romans if they managed to fully assimilate the foreigners as Romans, even their earlier decision not (or inability) to assimilate the Greeks and the East caused the Empire to be inherently splitted into two. Later on, the Byzantines even antagonized it's own people with their religious policy like Iconoclasm and the oppression of Monophysitism etc, causing more fracture and made these oppressed people an easy target of assimilation by other culture (Franks, Arabs, Turks etc), dismembering the Empire the process

( For people who don't know what I'm talking about it's this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_Roma )

I need to know for an alternate history project of mine where Carthage wins the Second Punic War. In order for it to work, Fabius has to be assassinated. Was there ever a possibility that that could have happened?

I've been trying to figure this out, however different sources give different dates. Such as 201 BC, 146 BC, 46 AD, 73 AD, 196 AD, or other dates.

I'm not sure so that's why I'm asking, but from my understanding it was subjugated in 146 BC, and annexed in 73 AD or 196 AD.

A picture I made using some editing for my Lego Roman page on Instagram.

We remember how Claudius and Nero didn't venture up to Britain, neither did Domitian, in the wars against the Picts, Iceni, etc... While one Parthian campaign was led by Claudius Fronto, a man who led the legions deep within Parthian territory, Verus had drinks in Antioch.

Wouldn't it be more simple if emperors like Caracalla, Alexander Severus, Decius, Valerian, Gallienus, Claudius II, etc... just sent over some commander to take care of the Goths, the Persians, the rebellions, etc... instead of trying to take care of themselves?

Yes, I know Trajan and Marcus Aurelius went on campaigns, but they didn't really get captured/die in battle did they? This becomes so common in the 3rd century that I don't understand why the emperors didn't just appoint some sort of 'magister militum' or some sort of 'dux orientalis' to go clean up the mess over in the eastern provinces.

We see that Gallienus appointed Odenathus as Dux Romanorum Corrector Totius Orientis. This is a good idea, you would figure this practice would be done more.

Like why not have your own Stilicho or Aetius during the crisis of the 3rd century?

View Poll

I was thinking about the 1st Triumvirate the other day and had some questions. Without considering what Caesar would later accomplish, why was he chosen to be the third partner in this unofficial alliance? Crassus as the richest man in Rome and Pompey as the leading military figure make sense. But at this point Caesar was extremely in debt, not militarily proven, and not yet a Consul. I understand he was very much the “junior” partner in the triumvirate and Pompey/Crassus helped him reach his later heights but why didn’t they ally with someone more established and respected like Cicero instead? I guess I’m just trying to understand what these men saw in Caesar specifically to ally themselves with him.

My professor on American Civil War compared Nat Turner’s slave rebellion and John Brown’s raids to the three Servile wars (Slave Rebellion) against Rome. Specifically it set the stages for the civil war to explode, like the third war (Spartacus revolt) introduced 2 of the future triumvirates, Crassus and Pompey

Augustus prohibited soldiers from marrying, requiring them to wait until retirement to do so. However, the service term for soldiers was 25 years, meaning that by the time they retired, they would inevitably be over 40 years old. It was not until 197 AD that Emperor Septimius Severus officially abolished this ban, finally allowing soldiers to marry.

I believe this law prevented Roman soldiers from effectively procreating. All Roman soldiers were bachelors. Although these soldiers could freely engage with women, any children born would be illegitimate. In ancient Rome, inheritance rights were typically granted only to children born within a lawful marriage, and illegitimate children could not inherit their father's property or status.

No wonder Messala in Ben-Hur never married. Even though Ben-Hur's sister, Tirzah, liked Messala, if she wanted to marry him, she would have to wait many years.

Given how much of WWE is showbiz and personality alongside fights that are mostly scripted, did gladiators have a similar technique where they put up a persona in front of the crowd to mask who they really are in private?

Sorry for the relatively low quality

I would say Scipio Africanus as he rescued Rome from the brink of disaster, and defeated their most famous opponent.