/r/ancientrome
In modern historiography, ancient Rome encompasses the founding of the Italian city of Rome in the 8th century BC, the Roman Kingdom, Roman Republic, Roman Empire, and the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD.
This is a subreddit dedicated to the Roman Kingdom, Republic and the Empire up until the fall of the Western Empire. Feel free to post about Roman architecture, military history, art, archaeological finds and anything else that deals with ancient Rome.
1. Be excellent with each other
"Gentleness and civility are more human, (than rage) and therefore (superior). The nearer a (person) comes to a calm mind, the closer (they are) to strength". Marcus Aurelius
2. No memes
For memery on this topic see /r/RoughRomanMemes
3. No posts about 21st Century politics or culture wars
The topic of this sub is ancient Rome. Please use other subs for these topics.
4. No self-promotion
Don't promote your stuff in the sub. Posting or commenting your youtube channel / blog / insta / ebook / facebook / discord group / book / product, or any other form of self-interested service, platform or content will result in an instant, permanent ban.
5. No AI-generated content
The users dont like it. Dont post it here.
We have custom flair available. Please use the menu above to select one for yourself!
For a complete list of history related subreddits, check out the sidebar on r/history.
/r/ancientrome
I'm writing a fantasy thing and I, like all the other unoriginal folks out there, am basing it on ancient Rome. But what I need is some unique weapons, and I was thinking of adding a bit of flair by encompassing OTHER weapons the legion might have used, but I can't find anything. I guess I'm just assuming things, but with ancient Rome having spanned most of the earth I was thinking surely there'd be something besides the main 2 weapons, but I can't find anything on my own and figured maybe some smart person here might illuminate me!
Hi! I know nothing about ancient Rome or the Roman empire but I'm trying to buy a book for my friend who's really into that. I know they've been wanting one about the rise and fall of the roman empire. If anyone has any recs I'd really appreciate it!
Campaspe (art. John William Godward) is the mistress of King Alexander the Great (reigned 336-323 BC) from the Thessalian city of Larissa, who became a source of inspiration for the artist Apelles.
to end the 3rd Punic War. How fantastic is that?
https://www.abc27.com/digital-originals/on-this-date-two-millennia-later-the-3rd-punic-war-ends/
So, I live in Turin. I moved here in 2021 and I love it. Anyways, I’ve been to all the museums and everything is pretty neat, but it’s hard to find something “exclusive” (except from the Shroud of Turin maybe).
It turns out that there are only 2 busts of Caesar confirmed to have been sculpted during his lifetime, and one is here. I was reading about it and went back to my old pictures and there it was (this pic is from 2022).
Gladius Sisak, Mainz type.5160 forged steel blade, 6 millimetres thick at the beginning, 54 cm long.
This is something I've never quite understood. It's argued that in the aftermath of the Year of the Five Emperors (YOT5E), Septimius Severus took measures which replaced Rome's previously civilian government with a more militarised one (something which prompted the rise of so many barrack emperors in the 3rd century). The chaos of the YOT5E was what allowed him to do this as the previously peaceful transitions of power under the Antonine emperors had been broken with the murder of Commodus.
But if it was this power vacuum that led to the rise of the military in politics, then why didn't that happen during the previous chaos vacuum year in 68-69, the Year of the Four Emperors? When the pax established by Augustus was broken and the legions started raising their own generals to be leaders again? That would have been the perfect opportunity for the victor, Vespasian, to do something similar to Septimius and yet he didn't.
Was there a difference in circumstances that explains the contrasting aftermaths of 68 vs 193? Or did it instead just come down more to the personal characteristics of Vespasian and Septimus?
While reading Antony & Cleopatra, Goldsworthy describes him as a pompous aristrocrat, a lazy soldier and a mostly incapable general, being his only redeeming quality (at least in Caesar's eyes) his undying loyalty towards everyone's favorite bald Dictator.
However, having previously listened to Duncan's History of Rome, I found that even though both descriptions coincided in that his administrative skills were abysmal and that he was most definitely not fit to rule, Mike says that whenever you put a helmet over the man's head, he turned into a leader of men, a courageous soldier, and a capable military commander. This perception is further backed by the fact that Marc Antony was crucial for the victory at Alesia.
I would greatly appreciate further points of view or sources that could help throw some light over this issue.
Thanks in advance!
Obviously the Roman Empire and its history was male dominated. But for such a long lasting civilization, there must have been some stories of women showing their greatness as well. I’m wondering which women in Ancient Rome (or around in the time of Ancient Rome) did you find most badass or interesting? I’m looking for anyone no matter the class or profession. Could be a ruler or it could be a common citizen. Just someone who is fascinating to you.
It makes me love the little guy a little more, honestly. Especially considering how completely opposite he was to his cousin, the ultimate chaos-bringer lol. I also wanna see young dogs play with little pigs, wish there was a venue somewhere for such an event..
It's mainly for school, but I also seek them out out of interest. I thought asking here could be a good idea. Are there any good suggestions? Thank you all in advance!
Marco Antonio seems to have acted in a mistaken and passionate way with Cleopatra. He acted excessively and gave Otavio ammunition to deliver the final blow. Do you think that the biggest weight really lies in Antonio's excessive actions or did Otavio's propaganda create a "storm in the making reaction"?
I've recently finished my reading of Graves' translation and read that it is mostly accurate but has some inaccuracies.
Specifically I was wondering if anyone could provide any examples of these inaccuracies?
I’ve always wondered how different Rome would have been if Pompey the Great had become emperor. He had all the right ingredients: military skill, civic pride, and the ability to play the political game.
Pompey was a military genius. By his 20s, he’d earned the title “Magnus” and taken down major enemies. One of his biggest wins was clearing the Mediterranean of pirates in just three months in 67 BCE, saving Rome’s trade and food supply. His campaigns in the East brought Rome more power and wealth than ever.
But Pompey wasn’t just a fighter, he cared about Rome. He built things like the Theatre of Pompey, the city’s first permanent theater and a cultural hotspot. His victories brought money that funded public works and celebrations, proving he was invested in Rome’s success.
Politically, he knew how to work the Senate and find middle ground, unlike Caesar’s more extreme approach. He even helped form the First Triumvirate to keep the peace.
So, could Pompey have been a great emperor? It’s hard to say, but looking at his record, he seemed to have what it took to lead with balance and vision.
Oh what it could have been if not for bloody Ceasar
Did Sulla really think no one was going to emulate his dictatorial escapades, especially when he had just provided an extremely unambiguous proof of concept for its feasibility and success?
Yes I know he tried to further solidify the prestige and authority of the Senate, ripping control of the courts from the equites and bequeathing it to the senators. There's also the cursus honorum, which (ostensibly) required a certain age and experience before high career advancement. I don't know, though. Sulla until this point always came across to me as ruthless yes but also shrewd, so it's a tough pill for me to swallow that he thought his retirement and reforms would change anything in the long run.
Was he just saving face and trying to make a show of caring?
Did he legitimately think he infra-structurally prevented a repeat of what he himself did in terms of power seizure? I don't think he was that naive but I am open to opinions on this.
My hunch is that he was privately cackling to himself that people bought his bullshit, and that his public conservative image was merely a facade.
just a little list of Primary sources from around the internet for anyone struggling to find sources
LacusCurtius • Diodorus Siculus
LacusCurtius • Dionysius of Halicarnassus — The Roman Antiquities
Not gonna link them all but Caesars written works i.e. Gallic Wars
LacusCurtius • Velleius Paterculus' History of Rome
Flavius Josephus THE WARS OF THE JEWS OR HISTORY OF THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM:Index.
Letters of Pliny, by Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus
Tacitus The Annals • The Histories
The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, by C. Suetonius Tranquillus;
LacusCurtius • Cassius Dio's Roman History
Herodian of Antioch, History of the Roman Empire (1961) pp.11-42. Book 1.
Eutropius, Abridgment of Roman History (Historiae Romanae Breviarium)
LacusCurtius • Ammian (Ammianus Marcellinus)
Please post any hot takes here about anything related to Rome. Mine is that Caesar only won in Gaul because of Labienus.
I saw the pinned post with the reading list but is there any suggestions for accurate/reliable visual sources. I’m looking to watch the history of the entire thing (forming of the empire to the collapse & Byzantine) and I do know that not one single source will cover it all.
Thanks all!