Given that Sicily and southern Italy were Greek and it was obvious that Alexander was in process of unifying the Greek people in his conquests was there any concern from Rome of the wars spreading into Their sphere of influence?

Reading an article about Elagabalus in a German history magazine (PM History). It claims this is a bust of him located in St Petersburg. To me this looks like a modified bust of Antinous (just uglier), or someone completely different? I've searched Google and Lens but can't find this bust anywhere. Any ideas?

Like books including and about Legio Fulminata, Legio Equestrius , Legio Gemina etc. (not only just these specific legions)?

And also any books recommendations on Agricola?

I'm having trouble finding specific information about Claudius' decision to essentially annex Judea. I'm curious about his motives, which are probably obvious, but also his justification for doing so... How did he frame it to justify it? Was his annexation intended to be permanent and total? Or something more similar to the system of Roman prefects like Pilate sharing authority with the Jewish leaders?

Full disclosure, I really am not a historian, that will become abundantly clear... All the stuff in about to write might be wrong, I'm not writing it as fact, I'm writing only what I currently think I know and how I understand the events.... Wherever I'm wrong I'm sorry... Please be gentle...

Why I'm curious is because Claudius became emperor with the assistance of Herod Agrippa, Claudius becomes emperor, he acknowledges Agrippa as king, as I understand it the term king is used specifically instead of other titles indicating complete autonomy from Rome? Then Claudius even gave him Judea and Samaria, these were under Roman influence, but given over to a sovereign king. Claudius essentially gives up Roman dominion in Judea. It appears that these two were "friends".

Herod Agrippa dies, succession becomes an issue. Apparently his son was too young to become king. The obvious solution? Appoint a temporary ruler, someone friendly with Rome, to act as a regent... But instead, Claudius decides to take direct control (idk how much control??) over the province of Judea which he himself had given to Agrippa previously.

So, did he have a justification for this? Did he need a justification? If so, did he at least try to argue some vague legal BS or anything? Or did he just say "It's ours now"? At this time did the Roman emperor have that authority? I know the senate still had influence in Rome for quite a while but not sure how much.

This also calls into question the title of "king" I mentioned earlier.. Apparently Claudius did have some legal footing in the region, or else how would he have any right to decree who gets the kingdom? Was he approached for assistance by prominent people in Judea? Did he have authority of the region? Or did he not have any authority, but just decided to go in like the US did to Iraq?

I might come off as naive, thinking these two were "friends", but I understand the reality of the world. They were most likely friendly because it was mutually beneficial to be friendly, scratching each other's backs. And when Claudius had the opportunity, he added a province to Rome, as the Roman's do. It just seems sudden, and I'm curious about the details.

Hello there, while searching for books to read on the Roman Republic I kept finding lots of content on the late republic and very little regarding the rest of it's history (now this might just be my fault as I'm fairly new to the whole searching for History books thing, but anyways.) So I was wondering if anyone can give me some book recommendations that go through the entire history of the republic or/and on the middle republic specifically since this is the period I'm most interested in. Thank you very much!

I am looking for books (preferably non-fiction but I’m good with some fiction) about the Roman Empire, the Rise, the Fall all of it, I’d like some that are more about the empire as a whole and some that are about specific event or people, generals or even senetors who had a major role in major events. Thank yall in advance!

How can I tell & where else can I get a few? I have a few early imperial denarius that are in good condition & I want to start collecting other artifacts.

There's a fair few contenders for this spot, but I'm leaning towards a date during the late empire's history. The three potential candidates for the most chaotic year would imo be:

• 238: Probably the most vicious 'year of the x emperors'. A rebellion in North Africa led by the Gordians, Maximinus marching towards Rome with the intention of massacring the Senate, the elevation of Pulpienus and Balbinus with riots and fires in Rome (OT: those two guys were nothing short of a black comedy with their constant infighting)... The year rounded out with 5 dead emperors and a child in power.

• 260: The moment the crisis of the 3rd century entered it's most turbulent decade. The capture of Valerian, the breakaway of Gaul, multiple rebellions, Goths, plague. What the hell. How did the empire survive this.

• 455:The emperor's best general is murdered. The emperor is murdered. A Vandal fleet sails up and sacks the eternal city, carrying off members of the imperial family and then terrorising the coastline. The replacement emperor tries fleeing the capital to save his own skin only to be torn to pieces by the mob. Just when Attila has been seen off, things crumble to pieces.

It makes more sense than Hannibal Lecter… 😂

When the Romans conquered Greece, they admired the Greek civilization and adopted the Greek language sounds of Y and Z (among other Greek sounds) and a significant amount of Greek loanwords. Would they have done this to Parthian or Persian (or even Avestan) sounds if they conquered Persia? Or would they have seen the Persian civilization as too "barbarian" and unworthy of admiring and borrowing linguistically from?

Are there any remains visible of the Curia where Julius Caesar was killed? I know the site and will visit in a couple of weeks but am curious about if there are any structures (wall, stone) visible at the site of the Curia at Largo Argentina? I don’t need any information on the Republican temples at the site. I’m quite familiar with the place.

Salve! I’m looking for recs - would really appreciate suggestions. For context, I’ve read about the Republic and Julio-Claudian dynasty quite extensively, but nothing after that period.

Any books on the Flavian period would also be welcome.

Thanks!

Hey there! I'd love to watch some movies, shows, documentaries, or YouTube videos about the Roman Empire that are historically accurate. If there's a good book, I'd be more than happy to read it as well! I found the series Roman Empire on Netflix, but I searched and discovered that it's not very accurate. So, I'd be really grateful for some good recommendations!

Caesar could easily be argued as the #1 candidate simply because he's the reason Augustus even had any power, but I feel like theres more to it than that.

When Caesar was assassinated, the future of Rome would have still been in doubt because there was no guarantee that it wouldn't have lead to just more constant Civil Wars eventually resulting in Rome collapsing or becoming really weak, but Augustus won out in the end and the stability he brought about was the reason why Caesar's legacy is as gigantic on human history as it is, but that was far from guaranteed after he was assassinated. When Augustus died, he left Rome in a very strong place that basically guaranteed that it would be in a strong spot for a while due to his reforms, infrastructure improvements, etc but especially the bureaucratic system he set in place held the empire together and running even when people like Caligula were emperor.

As for Jesus, I think it could be said that simply because the Roman Empire was so crucial for Christianity to have spread and become as big as it did, Caesar and Augustus were more influential than Jesus.

I guess to sum it, both Caesar and Jesus' lives being as important as they are was a consequence of Augustus' actions allowing them to have such long lasting impact, so in that sense he was more influential than the other two. I'm sure many people are more educated about this than I am, so l'm curious to see people's opinions on my perspective.

Why did Anthony choose a sea battle instead of a land battle against Octavian?

Documentary from the Fall of Tarquinius Superbus to the Government of Valerius:

https://youtu.be/mti5r9fLoAM?si=pjkg-CWhutTYf-br

I would highly recommend this series to anyone who hasn't watched it. Personally I think it rivals Rome in its portrayal of ancient Rome and it's politics.

I'm working on a project set during the First Punic War, but I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall when it comes to the sources. I've started reading Lazenby's First Punic War, and am struggling to reconcile one section (where he mentions a Punic/Syracusan blockade which aimed to prevent Appius Caudex from crossing to Messana) with other reading I've done. My current understanding is that the Mamertines ejected the Carthaginians from Messana by using 'trickery', and that the Romans were then invited in unopposed (and after this there was a skirmish outside Messana).

Is anybody able to set me straight? I know the sources aren't great for the period but my aim is to be as historically accurate as possible, and this particular episode is giving me a migraine!